POL3193a Report 1 - Safety Leaders Who are they What do they do · 2018-09-26 · Safety Leaders:...
Transcript of POL3193a Report 1 - Safety Leaders Who are they What do they do · 2018-09-26 · Safety Leaders:...
Safety leaders:who are they?;what do they do?Dr Colin Pilbeam, Dr Ross Davidson,
Dr Noeleen Doherty and Professor David Denyer
Cranfi eld University – School of Management
www.iosh.co.uk/practisingleadership Research Report
IOSH, the Chartered body for safety and
health professionals, is committed to
evidence-based practice in workplace safety
and health. We maintain a Research and
Development Fund to support research and
inspire innovation as part of our work as a
thought leader in safety and health.
All recipients of funding from our Research and
Development Fund are asked to compile a
comprehensive research report of their findings,
which is subject to peer review.
For more information on how to apply for grants
from the Fund, visit www.iosh.co.uk/getfunding,
or contact:
Kate Field
Head of Information and Intelligence
Mary Ogungbeje
Research and Development Co-ordinator
Ivan Williams
Research and Development Adviser
www.iosh.co.uk/practisingleadership Research Report
Safety leaders:who are they?;what do they do?Dr Colin Pilbeam, Dr Ross Davidson,
Dr Noeleen Doherty and Professor David Denyer
Cranfi eld University – School of Management
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
Cranfield School of Management
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health for their financial and all other support for this project.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
Cranfield School of Management
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................ 2
Safety Leadership: More or Less ............................................................................................................ 2
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................................... 4
Searching and Screening ........................................................................................................................ 4
Data Extraction ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Reporting ................................................................................................................................................. 5
FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................................................................. 7
Transformational – Transactional Leadership: An Academic Perspective ............................................. 7
Transactional Leadership ................................................................................................................... 7
Transformational Leadership ............................................................................................................ 11
Transformational – Transactional Leadership .................................................................................. 15
Transformational – Transactional Leadership: Policy Reports ............................................................. 19
Limitations of Transactional-Transformational Safety Leadership and Opportunities for
Further Work ......................................................................................................................................... 27
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX): Academic Literature ...................................................................... 28
Limitations of LMX Studies of Safety Leadership and Opportunities for Further Work ........................ 32
Safety Leadership: Practitioner Literature ............................................................................................. 33
Developments in Leadership Theory and Implications for Safety Leadership ...................................... 35
Authentic Leadership ............................................................................................................................ 35
Importance of Context: Contextual Leadership..................................................................................... 35
Technical – Adaptive Leadership .......................................................................................................... 36
‘Plural’ Leadership ................................................................................................................................. 36
DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................................................... 38 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................................. 41 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................................. 42 APPENDIX 1
List of articles and reports from different sources identified in the search of the electronic
databases and by cross referencing from these initial articles. ............................................................ 49
References – Academic Literature ........................................................................................................ 49
References – Policy Literature .............................................................................................................. 50
References – Practitioner Literature ..................................................................................................... 52
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
Cranfield School of Management
Page intentionally left blank.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 1]
Cranfield University, School of Management
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There appears to be no unequivocal or unambiguous definition of safety leadership and no definitive
statement of the roles and practices of a safety leader. Yet the questions: Who is a safety leader?
Where do they reside in the organization? What roles and practices are constitutive of safety
leadership?, are important ones and affect organizational working environments and the safety of
employees.
The purpose of this report is to review safety-related literature in order to address these questions. It
also reviews the wider academic literature on leadership known to the authors to identify alternative
leadership perspectives that may impact safety and to suggest possible directions for future research.
Adopting the method of systematic literature review we identify 21 academic articles, 18 policy reports
and 18 practitioner articles published in the ASSE journal, Professional Safety, that address issues
pertinent to safety leadership.
The 21 academic articles using survey-based quantitative data, empirically investigated the
relationship between supervisor and front-line employee and how this affects safety outcomes,
principally safety compliance and safety participation. These studies were cross-sectional and view
leadership either from a transformational-transactional perspective or through Leader-Member
Exchange (LMX). It is striking that there is an absence of any systematic academic study of questions
related to safety leadership.
The 18 policy reports were a mixture of empirical studies and literature reviews. The empirically-based
reports typically examined either directors or supervisors of front-line workers using a variety of
qualitative techniques including interviews, focus groups and questionnaires. The studies also
adopted either a transformational-transactional perspective on leadership or viewed leadership
through LMX. The empirical studies identify leadership practices that could be mapped onto either
one of the four dimensions of transformational leadership (idealized influence, inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation and individual consideration) or the constructive leadership dimension of
transactional leadership.
A set of 8 different practices that safety leaders were encouraged to adopt were identified from the 18
articles published in Professional Safety.
Three discrete categories or bundles of leadership practices could be identified from these different
literature sources. The first, Safety Coaching, has a future orientation and includes the practices of
role modelling, being visible, prioritizing safety, involving or empowering others, training and coaching.
The second, Safety Caring, is focused on other people and includes the practices of showing care
and concern for others, creating and maintaining a safe working environment, valuing and developing
others, communicating and listening. The third, Safety Controlling, is focused on ensuring safe
working in the present and is characterized by practices that align more closely with management
than leadership. This includes the practices of setting goals, monitoring performance and rewarding
appropriately.
Alternative conceptualizations of leadership that have not been adapted for empirical investigation of
safety leadership include authentic leadership, technical-adaptive leadership and various forms of
‘plural’ leadership. Each suggests opportunities for future research. Authentic leadership might
encourage an exploration of the values and beliefs concerning safety of individual safety leaders.
Technical-Adaptive leadership encourages an examination of the effect of context. The existing
studies focus on stable organizational contexts, but how is safety leadership practised in dynamic
environments and does it differ? ‘Plural’ leadership asserts that leadership may not reside with a
single person and suggests that safety leadership may be shared between a small number of people
or more widely distributed amongst a team. The implications of these for safety leadership practices
have not been investigated.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 2]
Cranfield University, School of Management
INTRODUCTION
Safety Leadership: More or Less Who is a safety leader? Where do they reside in an organization? What roles and practices are
constitutive of safety leadership? These are important questions that affect organizational working
environments and the safety of employees, yet academic and practitioner literatures provide no
definitive answers. No unequivocal, unambiguous definition of a safety leader or safety leadership
exists and the roles and practices signifying safety leadership vary with the focus of the particular
study or guidance note which may be aimed at directors, managers, supervisors or front-line
employees, making specification difficult.
The earliest references to the notion of safety leadership appear to be in a CBI publication,
‘Developing a Safety Culture’ (CBI, 1990)1, where leadership is required to initiate, develop and
sustain an organizational culture. A subsequent HSE publication, ‘Organizing for Safety’ (ACSNI,
1993)2, noted the emergence of the following dominant themes:
a. The crucial importance of leadership and the commitment of the chief executive;
b. The executive safety role of line management;
c. The involvement of all employees;
d. Openness of communication; and
e. The demonstration of care and concern for all those affected by the business.
Evidently, organizational leaders were being encouraged to embrace the consideration of safety as
part of their role, with some initial suggestions for what they might do to perform this safety leadership
role including employee engagement, effective communication and concern. Following the CBI
publication1, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) produced a practical guide, ‘Successful Health
and Safety Management’ (HSG65)3 in 1991, which has been revised subsequently. The latest
version, ‘Managing for health and safety’4 published in 2013 adopts a ‘Plan, Do, Check, Act’ model for
safety and notes that leaders should focus attention on risk profiling, demonstrate commitment to
safety by providing a safe working environment, set goals and monitor performance, engage the
workforce and challenge behaviours. These and similar guidance notes for particular industry sectors,
for example construction (HSE, 2012)5 or major hazard industries (HSE, 2004)
6 and briefing
documents (The IET, 2012)7 encourage organizational leaders to embrace safety as part of their
wider responsibility, a point emphasized in the annual Rivers Lecture to the Worshipful Company of
in 2009 by Judith Hackitt, Chair of the HSE (HSE, 2009)8. Company Secretaries and Administrators
This approach is consistent with the view that safety leadership is broadly defined when safety is an
integral part of the leader’s wider role.
However, reading the specialist academic and practitioner literatures on safety and some guidance
notes on safety provides a more restrictive view of safety leadership in practice focusing exclusively
on those activities that promote safety and ensure safe working practices, to the exclusion of other
activities. For example, INDG343 ‘Directors’ responsibilities for health and safety’ (HSE, 2002)9, the
HSE’s guidance note for Directors considers the Board’s formal role in providing Health and Safety
leadership and the responsibilities of individual members in delivering Health and Safety leadership
without acknowledging their other responsibilities or the integration of safety into these other
functions. Similarly academic studies (e.g. Hofmann and Morgeson, 199910
; Zohar, 2002a11
; Kapp,
201212
) focus solely on those aspects of individual leadership practice by supervisors that deliver
safety outcomes for employees. In these examples, the leader’s attention is detached from the
consideration of wider organizational issues (e.g. managing shareholder value, setting organizational
strategy at a senior level or operational matters including, for example, scheduling at a supervisor
level). It is possible that these issues are less important for the safety leader, or simply not part of the
safety leader role. This narrow focus on safety encourages the tendency to consider safety leadership
as a specialist activity detached and separate from other aspects of organizational life, similar
perhaps to sales leadership, or IT leadership. This orientation easily allows the formation of a unit or
team of specialist Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) practitioners within the organization
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 3]
Cranfield University, School of Management
responsible for overseeing safety for the whole organization. As a consequence OSH may be seen
perhaps as a cost and beyond the resources available to many smaller organizations, or may be
marginalized and given low priority. It should also be noted that effective safety leadership has no
tangible outcomes, to be effective nothing happens. Consequently it is not obviously self-reinforcing,
unlike the leadership of other activities, such as sales growth, where there are positive tangible
outcomes.
The alternative broader view, where safety is an integral part of the leader’s wider role, places safety
in the mainstream of issues that are to be considered by organizational leaders. Safety then becomes
a senior management team responsibility creating or making visible the perceived tensions between
organizational performance and organizational safety, noted, for example, by Zohar (2002b)13
. This
perspective encourages us to review the wider literature on leadership and to consider how this may
inform the practice and delivery of safety for individuals and to the organization.
Recognizing these alternative perspectives, this review seeks to address the three opening questions.
To do this we will first present a survey of the specialist safety academic literature, policy reports and
some practitioner articles devoted exclusively to safety leadership. This will reveal current
conceptualizations of safety leadership, which include transactional-transformational approaches and
leader-member exchange (LMX). Safety leadership practices deemed pertinent to each of these
leadership approaches are documented. Attention will then turn to the wider academic literature on
leadership drawing principally on several recent reviews of leadership to reveal newer
conceptualizations, specifically authentic leadership, adaptive-technical leadership and ‘plural’
leadership. These alternative conceptualizations of leadership provide a critique of the existing safety
leadership perspectives. The implications of this for future research on this topic are considered. The
review will conclude with a discussion that draws attention to the fragmented and disparate nature of
safety leadership research and particularly to differences in the status of the focal safety leader in the
different sources. It will provide a synthesis of the safety practices, bundling them together according
to safety control, safety care and safety coaching as suggested by Wu et al., (2008)14
. Drawing on the
wider leadership literature and highlighting the limitations of existing safety leadership research the
review outlines suggestions for future work.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 4]
Cranfield University, School of Management
METHODOLOGY
A literature review based on the systematic literature review methodology developed for management
and business studies (Tranfield et al., 200315
; Denyer and Tranfield, 200916
) was deployed. The steps
in the review process are explained below.
Searching and Screening A series of key words were developed in relation to each of the primary terms of interest in the study,
namely safety, leadership and role (Table 1). These keywords were combined to make strings using
the Boolean character ‘OR’ and different strings were combined using the Boolean character ‘AND’ as
shown in Table 2 and applied to five different electronic databases (ABI-Proquest, EBSCO Host –
Business Source Complete, SCOPUS, Science Direct and PsychInfo) in February and March 2013.
Table 2 indicates the number of items appearing at that time in scholarly peer reviewed academic
journals in the different databases in relation to the different search string combinations. An initial
screen of these titles permitted a substantial reduction in apparently relevant articles (Table 2). Titles
were excluded on the basis of perceived relevance. These exclusion criteria included book reviews
and non-English language articles. Other topics or themes warranting exclusion for articles identified
from the Safety + Leadership + Role string are shown in Table 3.
After the removal of duplicates occurring in each of the databases, the string for ‘Safety + Leadership
+ Role’ was reduced from 112 to 54. A three member panel then reviewed the abstracts of each of
these 54 articles for relevance. Once consensus was reached seven articles pertinent to safety leader
practices remained (see Appendix 1). Using these as a foundation, the reference lists of these seven
articles were scanned for additional potentially relevant articles. The citations of these seven articles
were also reviewed. A further 14 articles relevant to safety leader practices were identified (see
Appendix 1).
As a complement to this search of academic literature, a review was undertaken of policy and practice
literature from both the IOSH (Institute of Occupational Safety and Health) and HSE (Health and
Safety Executive) websites. At the time of the review (June 2013) the IOSH website contained 47
publicly available reports. The titles of these were screened for safety, leadership and low hazard
environments. The HSE website contained many more research reports (c. 1000). The titles of these
reports were screened for leadership, management and/or low hazard. A manual search of the titles
was performed because of the nature of the search engine on the website; typing a relevant phrase or
word would return multiple copies of the same document. These searches of practitioner and policy
literature generated 18 research-based reports for further investigation (see Appendix 1). A further
two international reports (OECD, 201217
; European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 201218
)
were identified by members of our Advisory Group. Practical guides and manuals were excluded at
this stage. Manual searching also allowed the identification of apparently relevant reports, which
would not have appeared through searching on the key words (e.g. “What practitioners do: A survey
of UK Registered Safety Practitioners to determine their roles and tasks”, Jones R. (2005)19
).
Some practitioner literature was also surveyed. All of the back issues of the journal of the American
Society of Safety Engineers - Professional Safety were reviewed and 18 articles dealing with safety
leadership were identified (see Appendix 1).
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 5]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Data Extraction These academic articles, policy reports and practitioner literature were read and analysed and the
following information extracted from each item (where appropriate):
Author, title and year;
Study type;
Sample;
Type of Industry;
Key Findings;
Limitations;
Research questions;
Theoretical perspectives;
Locus of leadership.
Reporting These data indicated in detail in the tables throughout the review then permitted the compilation of a
narrative overview of academic and non-academic literature that explores safety leadership, how it is
understood, what outcomes are consequent upon leadership and what practices safety leaders
engage in to secure these outcomes. This literature is augmented by a selection of reviews from the
wider leadership literature known to the authors that is used to inform how both the study and practice
of safety leadership could develop.
Table 1. Keywords used to create search strings
Main term Additional terms
Safety safety OR security OR sure* OR safeguard OR protect* OR reliab* OR resilien*
Leadership leader* OR manage* OR advisor OR director OR supervisor OR facilitator OR officer OR superintendent OR chief OR commander OR expert OR coach OR specialist
Role activity OR action OR role OR function OR skill OR enact OR do OR conduct OR routine OR practi?e
Table 2. Number of items discovered by applying a search string to an electronic database.
Number of relevant titles are in parenthesis
Database
Search String
ABI EBSCO SCOPUS Science Direct
PsycInfo
Safety + Leadership
1192 1169 6486 1949 577
Safety + Role
1263 1533 20425 6124 2250
Safety + Leadership + Role
90
(12)
100
(21)
480
(37)
134
(18)
66
(24)
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 6]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Table 3. Topics and themes excluded in a title screen of results from a search string
Search String
Primary Topic or Theme
Subsidiary Topic or Theme
Safety + Leadership +Role
Cyber Security IT systems/Networks, data security
Health and Patient Safety
Medicine, mental health
Financial Security Pensions, stocks, fund management, loans, credit, investment, Tax, bankruptcy
Food safety / security
Environmental safety Environmental protection, climate change, marine, agriculture
Psychological safety
Technical safety Engineering
Business performance Production, litigation, law
Transport safety Driving, air transport, vehicle safety
Modelling
National security
Family Child protection, community,
Mothers and adolescents
Schooling / education
Energy security
Chemical safety
Product safety
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 7]
Cranfield University, School of Management
FINDINGS
Transformational – Transactional Leadership: An Academic Perspective According to the HSE sponsored literature review of effective leadership behaviours for safety
conducted by Lekka and Healey (2012)20
current safety leadership research is focused on either
transactional-transformational leadership or leader-member exchange. Our review of the current
literature published in academic journals would support their assertion.
Transformational leadership may be defined as leader behaviours that transform and inspire followers
to perform beyond expectations while transcending self-interest for the good of the organization
(Avolio et al., 200921
; pg 423). Transformational leadership comprises four leader behaviours (Bass,
198522
) namely; idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individual
consideration and is characterized by value-based and individualized interaction, which results in
better exchange quality and greater concern for welfare (Zohar, 2002a11
). Idealized influence is
based on trust and occurs when leaders demonstrate high standards of moral conduct in their own
behaviour, becoming role models for their subordinates. Inspirational motivation occurs when
leaders provide clarity, communicating a positive value-based vision for the future state of the
organization and its employees and challenging employees to go beyond their personal interests and
focus their attention on the goals of the collective. Leaders exhibit intellectual stimulation when they
encourage employees to share their perspectives on issues, to challenge organizational norms,
question assumptions and to think creatively. Leaders draw on a variety of opinions in order to make
decisions. Leaders displaying individual consideration recognize the unique needs and abilities of
the followers and by adapting their approach seek to coach or mentor them in order that they might
reach their full potential. Each of these four dimensions of transformational leadership has
implications for safety leadership (see Kapp, 201212
or Hoffmeister et al., 201423
).
In contrast, transactional leadership is based on non-individualized hierarchical relationships and
comprises three dimensions (constructive leadership, corrective leadership and laissez-faire
leadership) (Zohar, 2002a11
). Constructive leadership offers material rewards (e.g. increased salary,
promotion, job security) contingent upon satisfactory performance. This requires clear communication
between leader and follower. Some understanding of the individual needs and abilities is needed in
order to offer motivationally relevant rewards. Corrective leadership (or active management by
exception) monitors individual performance against standards, detecting errors and correcting them.
Laissez-faire leadership (passive management by exceptions) disowns all leadership responsibility
and only engages with subordinates in an emergency.
Transformational leaders create a positive supportive environment, act as role models to others,
articulate a clear vision, show concern for the welfare of employees, act as mentors and inspire and
challenge employees (Lekka and Healey, 201220
).
Transactional Leadership
Based on an ABC (Antecedents-Behaviours-Consequences) model, Zohar and colleagues’ studies of
transactional safety leadership (see Table 4 for details) show that safety leadership attempts to
encourage safe working behaviours through modification of antecedents or consequences. In these
three longitudinal studies safe working by employees was indicated through observations of working
practices, in particular the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) by workers or through official
accident reports of minor injuries. Each of these studies focused on the content of the interaction
between supervisor and worker and whether safety considerations were part of these conversations.
Those supervisors who interacted with workers and discussed safety matters were commended by
their superiors on a weekly basis. They were also informed of their performance relative to other
supervisors. Over a period of several weeks employees adopted safer working behaviours, as the
safety content of interactions with supervisors increased in response to supervisors receiving
feedback on their performance from their superiors. These studies demonstrated that more senior
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 8]
Cranfield University, School of Management
managers can more effectively implement safety policy and can encourage safe working behaviours
in the workforce through effective engagement on a one-to-one basis between supervisors and
workers on a daily basis.
In terms of the ABC model, supervisors were providing verbal and non-verbal feedback (both positive
and negative) to workers on their performance of safe working practices. These consequences
(feedback) were set in the context of prior training and goal setting (the antecedents) to the desired
behaviours. The leadership practices of these supervisors therefore included:
Monitoring;
Communicating; and
Rewarding (through giving feedback).
These three items compare with the transactional safety leadership practices noted by Kapp (2012)12
and Zohar (2002a11
, b13
) namely:
Establishing appropriate safety goals;
Monitoring performance towards these goals; and
Rewarding behaviours that sustain or improve safety performance.
These studies of improvements in worker safety through supervisor-worker exchanges were
conducted only in a manufacturing setting. While these findings might also apply in supervised service
settings, like call centres or picking and packing in distribution centres, this requires testing.
Furthermore, their applicability in other settings (e.g. professional service firms) where direct
supervision is less frequent remains to be explored.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 9]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Table 4. Academic studies examining leadership in a safety context from a transactional leadership perspective
Author Date Focal Question + Focal safety
outcome
Sample Context + Leadership level
Sample Population Method Key Findings
Luria, Zohar and Erev
24
2008 How do situational factors (i.e. visibility) influence the effectiveness of supervisory-based safety interventions to encourage safe working?
Worker safety behaviour (wearing PPE).
Manufacturing companies producing ice cream, chemical products, milk products, processed baked goods and salads in Israel.
Supervisors and shop floor workers.
955 shop floor workers and 57 supervisors in five manufacturing plants.
Longitudinal interventionist quantitative data of behaviour change and effectiveness of supervision. Survey instrument captured safety-related supervisory interactions, worker safety behaviour and a rating of visibility of activities.
Greater frequency of supervisory exchanges improved safety behaviour. Frequency and ease of giving feedback promotes safer working.
Zohar13
2002b Can safety-specific supervisory interactions improve safe working practise?
Official accident reports of minor injuries.
Regional maintenance centre for heavy-duty equipment in Israel.
Worker-supervisor relationships.
381 line workers and 36 supervisors.
Longitudinal experimental interventionist quantitative data.
Surveys measured safety-oriented supervisory role episodes and group safety climate. Injury data came from official records.
Supervisory safety practices (i.e. frequent safety-oriented interactions with workers) can be changed by feedback from their superiors. These changes can result in improvements in worker safety behaviours and in improvement in perceived safety climate.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 10]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Author Date Focal Question + Focal safety
outcome
Sample Context + Leadership level
Sample Population Method Key Findings
Zohar and Luria
25
2003 Can on-going interactions between supervisors and workers modify worker safety behaviour?
Worker safety performance, supervisory interactions.
3 Manufacturing companies (an oil refinery, processing baked goods, processing milk products).
Primarily worker and supervisor, but also includes supervisor – senior manager relationships.
Oil Refinery: 121 front-line workers and 13 supervisors. Baked goods: 248 front-line workers and 23 supervisors. Milk products: 187 front-line workers and 13 supervisors.
Longitudinal interventionist quantitative data. Survey instrument measured safety-related supervisory interactions. Worker safety behaviours were observed. Safety climate was measured in the oil refinery only.
Encouraging supervisors to frequently address safety issues with workers (through corrective and supportive exchanges) can reduce the incidence of unsafe working in employees. This requires prioritization of safety by senior management to supervisors.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 11]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Transformational Leadership
Studies focusing solely on transformational safety leadership come from the work of two groups (see
Table 5 for details). The group based in Canada (Barling et al., 200226
; Kelloway et al., 200627
; Mullen
and Kelloway, 200928
; Innes et al., 201029
) studied safety leadership (presumably of supervisors,
although this is not explicitly stated) mainly in service sector settings, while the UK-based group
(Conchie and Donald, 200930
; Conchie et al., 201231
) studied the role of trust in the relationships
between supervisors and workers in high hazard settings. Unlike the studies of transactional safety
leadership these studies were mainly cross-sectional using surveys based on existing scales to collect
data on leadership, safety climate (Zohar, 198032
), safety compliance (Neal, et al., 200033
; Neal and
Griffin, 200634
), safety participation (Neal et al., 200033
; Neal and Griffin, 200634
; Mearns et al., 200335
;
Silva et al, 200436
) and safety conscientiousness (Costa and McCrae, 199237
). Safety outcomes were
injuries and other safety-related events, or safety performance, including compliance or participation.
The leadership behaviours under scrutiny focused principally on encouraging open communication with
workers and encouraging workers to work safely. While many of the studies refer to Barling et al.,
(2002)26
as a source of 10 items indicating transformational safety leadership, they are not specified in
that paper. The constituent activities of transformational leadership are however found in Kelloway et
al., (2006)27
and include:
Expressing satisfaction when jobs are performed safely;
Rewarding achievement of safety targets;
Continuous encouragement for safe working;
Maintaining a safe working environment;
Suggesting new ways of working more safely;
Encouraging employees to openly discuss safety at work;
Talking about personal value and beliefs in the importance of safety;
Behaving in a way that demonstrates commitment to safety;
Spending time to demonstrate how to work safely; and
Listening to safety concerns.
These six studies suggest that transformational leadership increases safety participation and so
enhances safety outcomes, reducing injuries. Safety climate and trust may influence (by either
moderating or mediating) the relationship between leadership and safety participation. These works
explore transformational leadership in the context of a supervisor-worker relationship. Future work could
investigate this relationship between other dyads, for example, senior managers and their subordinate
middle managers and in other organizational contexts such as manufacturing which has been the
context for studies of transactional leadership (see Table 4).
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 12]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Table 5. Academic studies examining leadership in a safety context from a transformational leadership perspective
Author Date Focal Question + Focal safety
outcome
Sample Context +
Leadership level
Sample Population
Method Key Findings
Barling, Loughlin and Kelloway
26
2002 Can transformational leadership improve occupational safety?
Occupational injuries and safety related events.
Customer-focused service sector organizations in Canada.
Supervisor level.
174 restaurant workers (study 1).
164 young workers in diverse jobs (study 2).
Cross sectional quantitative data. Self-report survey using MLQ leadership scale, perceived safety climate, safety consciousness, and safety-related events.
Positive safety climate and high safety consciousness reduce injuries. While transformational leadership enhances safety climate and safety consciousness, role overload undermines them.
Conchie and Donald
30
2009 What is the role of trust in the relationship between leadership and safety behaviour?
Safety citizenship behaviours.
UK construction company.
Supervisors of front-line employees.
33 supervisors and 139 workers.
Cross sectional quantitative data. Self-reported survey of dyads between supervisors and workers. Survey includes measures of safety-specific transformational leadership, safety specific trust and safety citizenship behaviours.
Trust moderates relationship between leadership and employee safety behaviour. When trust is high, leadership promotes safety behaviours, when trust is low, it does not.
Conchie, Taylor and Donald
31
2012 How does transformational leadership encourage employee safety voice? What is the nature and role of trust?
Safety voice.
UK oil refinery.
Supervisors of employees.
150 employees and 29 supervisors.
Cross sectional quantitative data using a questionnaire. The measures included safety-specific transformational leadership, trust beliefs, trust intentions, safety voice behaviour.
Transformational leadership encourages safety voice. This effect was mediated by affect-based trust not cognition-based trust.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 13]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Author Date Focal Question + Focal safety
outcome
Sample Context +
Leadership level
Sample Population
Method Key Findings
Innes, Turner, Barling and Stride
29
2010 How does transformational leadership affect employee safety performance? and does effect carry over to another occupation?
Safety performance (compliance and participation)
Variety of sectors. None dominant.
Not clear leadership position.
159 individuals with concurrent jobs in different organizations.
Cross-sectional quantitative data. Survey questionnaire measured generalized transformational leadership, safety compliance, safety participation, safety concern, conscientiousness.
Safety leadership affects safety participation but not compliance. Limited evidence of carry-over from one job to the second, so leadership is context and person specific.
Kelloway, Mullen and Francis
27
2006 How does the type of leadership affect workplace safety?
Safety events and injuries.
Mixed service sector jobs in Canada.
Not clear who the leaders are, presumably immediate supervisors.
158 young temporary workers.
Cross sectional quantitative data. Self-reported questionnaire containing measures of safety leadership, injuries, safety-related events and safety climate.
Engaged managers (transformational leaders) positively influence safety outcomes. They impact safety consciousness and safety climate directly, and injuries and safety events indirectly. Disengaged managers (passive leaders) diminish levels of safety consciousness and weaken safety climate.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 14]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Author Date Focal Question + Focal safety
outcome
Sample Context +
Leadership level
Sample Population
Method Key Findings
Mullen and Kelloway
28
2009 How does transformational leadership training affect leader and employee safety outcomes?
Safety compliance and safety participation, safety related events and injuries.
21 Canadian healthcare organizations.
Nurse managers and their direct reports.
54 nurse managers and 115 employees.
Participating managers randomly assigned to groups receiving different training. Outcomes measured 1 week before and 3 months after training using a different survey for managers and employees that cover safety attitudes, self-efficacy, transformational leadership, safety climate, safety participation, safety compliance, injuries and safety related events.
Longitudinal quantitative data.
Safety specific transformational leadership training improves safety attitudes and self-efficacy of leaders and reduces perceived safety-related events and injuries amongst employees.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 15]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Transformational – Transactional Leadership
A number of studies (see Table 6 for details) investigate the co-occurrence of both transactional and
transformational safety leadership. With the exception of the study by Dahl and Olsen (2013)38
, these
were survey-based cross sectional studies conducted in high hazard settings, for example, UK
manufacturing (Clarke and Ward, 200639
), US construction (Hoffmeister et al., 201423
) and container
terminals in Taiwan (Lu and Yang, 201040
). The focal relationship in each of these studies was that
between worker and supervisor, although Dahl and Olsen’s (2013)38
study of a Norwegian oil platform
may have involved other relationships between managers and workers too.
Zohar (2002a)11
alone used reported injuries as safety outcomes. All of the other studies focused on
safety compliance (Dahl and Olsen, 201338
) or safety participation (Clarke and Ward, 200639
), or a
combination of the two (Kapp, 201212
; Lu and Yang, 201040
). These studies mainly used scales
developed by Griffin and Neal (Griffin and Neal, 200041
; Neal et al, 200033
; Neal and Griffin, 200634
),
although Dahl and Olsen (2013)38
developed their own Leadership Compliance Tool (LCT). Safety
climate (where assessed) was most often measured using all or part of the scale developed by Zohar
(2000)42
. Leadership scales typically built on the Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass
and Avolio, 199043
; 199744
; 200245
; Avolio and Bass, 200446
) either using different versions of the scale
(Hoffmeister et al., 201423
; Kapp, 201212
; Zohar, 2002a11
), or in the case of Lu and Yang (2010)40
, using
the MLQ scale in conjunction with other scales to develop a scale measuring three dimensions of safety
leadership, namely safety motivation, safety policy and safety concern. Dahl and Olsen (2013)38
measured leadership involvement in planning and preparing work, in monitoring work performance and
in encouraging inter-unit cooperation.
Positive safety leadership by supervisors encourages safety behaviours and safety performance of
workers. Safety performance (i.e. the use of PPE and safety compliance) is positively related mainly to
transactional safety leadership practices (e.g. planning, monitoring and reward). Safety behaviours (i.e.
safety participation) are encouraged by transformational safety leadership (e.g. concern and
motivation).
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 16]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Table 6. Academic studies examining leadership in a safety context from both transformational – transactional leadership perspectives
Author Date Focal Question + Focal safety
outcome
Sample Context + Leadership
level
Sample Population
Method Key Findings
Clarke and Ward
39
2006 What are the influence tactics used by leaders to achieve employee safety participation?
Safety participation.
UK glassware manufacturer.
Supervisors of front-line employees.
105 useable responses from two sites.
Cross sectional quantitative data. Survey including measures of safety climate, leader influence tactics and safety participation.
Safety participation influenced directly by coalition, and partially by rational persuasion and consultation. Safety climate mediated the effects of rational persuasion and consultation too, and also mediated inspirational appeals.
Dahl and Olsen
38
2013 How does leadership involvement in day-to-day activities affect worker safety compliance?
Safety compliance.
Norwegian oil platform.
Not clear leadership position.
More than 10,000 responses from employees on 28 platforms between January 2009 and October 2010.
Longitudinal survey of off-shore workers (received questionnaire 6 times in period). Survey items included leadership involvement, worker competence and involvement, role clarity and safety compliance.
Leadership involvement affects safety compliance both directly and indirectly through effects of work climate. Direct effects are achieved through planning and preparation, monitoring, ensuring cooperation between team members. Indirect effects are achieved by ensuring role clarity, worker competence and involvement, monitoring third parties (contractors).
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 17]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Author Date Focal Question + Focal safety
outcome
Sample Context + Leadership
level
Sample Population
Method Key Findings
Hoffmeister, Gibbons, Johnson, Cigularov, Chen and Rosecrance
23
2014 How do the different facets of leadership affect employee safety?
Safety outcomes (including safety climate, safety compliance, safety participation, work-related injuries and work-related pain).
US Construction industry.
Relationship between apprentices or journeymen and their supervisors.
1167 construction pipefitters and plumbers from 5 organizations in 3 regions of US.
Cross sectional quantitative data. Survey contained questions relating to transactional and transformational leadership, and measures of supervisor support, safety communication, safety compliance and safety participation, and work-related injury or pain.
All facets of leadership influence safety climate, but only some influenced safety participation and compliance.
Idealized attributes and idealized behaviours are key but especially to a positive safety climate and high safety participation.
Inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation and contingent rewards are less influential and relate to different outcomes.
Kapp12
2012 What leadership practices affect front-line worker safety participation and compliance?
Safety compliance and safety participation.
US construction and manufacturing companies.
First line supervisors and their employees.
153 employees from different construction companies. 402 employees from two manufacturing companies.
Cross-sectional quantitative data. Survey instrument contained items on leadership practices, group safety climate, safety compliance, and safety participation.
Both transformational and transactional leadership positively affect safety participation. Both also positively affect safety compliance, but only in a strong group safety climate. Compliance is unaffected by leadership in a weak safety climate.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 18]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Author Date Focal Question + Focal safety
outcome
Sample Context + Leadership
level
Sample Population
Method Key Findings
Lu and Yang40
2010 How does worker perception of managers’ safety leadership affect their safety performance?
Safety compliance and safety participation.
Container terminal companies in Taiwan.
Senior managers in relation to workers.
336 employees from 5 major terminals at international ports.
Cross sectional quantitative data. Self-reported questionnaire containing measures of safety motivation, safety policy and safety concern (each developed from other scales), safety compliance, safety participation.
If leaders are perceived to be concerned and motivated about safety then safety compliance and participation of workers will be greater.
Zohar11
2002a How do different leadership styles affect safety outcomes? Is this relationship mediated by safety climate?
Reported injuries.
Regional maintenance centre for heavy-duty equipment in Israel.
Worker-supervisor relationships.
411 production workers at metal processing plant.
Cross sectional quantitative data. Survey instruments measured safety climate and leadership at a single point by workers. Supervisors recorded assigned safety priorities. Injury records were kept over 6 months.
Transformational leadership characterized by concern for worker welfare (i.e. close relationships) promotes supervisory safety practices, creates higher safety climate, better safety behaviours and less accidents. Transactional supervision (through monitoring and rewards) encourages safety performance.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 19]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Transformational – Transactional Leadership: Policy Reports 18 research reports mainly published by the HSE were identified, the exceptions being the study by
Conchie and Moon (2010)47
for IOSH and the two international reports (OECD, 201217
; European
Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 201218
) (see Table 7 for details). Six of the reports reviewed
existing academic and policy literature (e.g. Lekka and Healey, 201220
; Wright and James, 200648
;
Shearn and Miller, 200549
; Ward et al., 200450
; O’Dea and Flin, 200351
; Gadd and Collins, 200252
) and
the remainder were empirical studies investigating how a particular group of individuals (e.g. directors
or supervisors) might affect safety within an organization. Typically the organizations were found in high
hazard industries in the UK, including construction (Healey and Sugden, 201253
; Cummings, 200654
), oil
industry (Busby and Collins, 200955
) and chemical and allied industries (Fuller and Vassie, 200556
;
Brazier et al., 200457
).
The empirical studies identified a number of leadership practices that are perceived generally to deliver
positive safety outcomes, although none of these studies, with the exception of Conchie and Moon
(2010)47
, explicitly identified and assessed safety outcomes. The general lack of longitudinal data in
most empirical studies, with the exception of Healey and Sugden’s (2012)53
report on the construction
of the Olympic Park, hampers the direct attribution of changes in safety outcomes to particular
practices, leaving authors to point to associations between specific actions and derived, often
perceived, safety outcomes. All of the empirical studies, except for Brazier et al., (2004)57
, suggest that
leaders in many cases supervisors (e.g. Fleming, 199958
; Conchie and Moon, 201047
; Healey and
Sugden, 201253
) or occasionally more senior managers (e.g. Ernst and Young, 200059
; King et al.,
201060
) are individuals rather than teams or collectives. These studies suggest that individual leaders
engaged in activities that either indirectly or directly impacted others, most commonly front-line workers
(e.g. Fleming, 199958
; Conchie and Moon, 201047
; Healey and Sugden, 201253
).
Indirect effects of leaders were achieved through role modelling appropriate safety behaviours to others
(Poxon et al., 200761
), or setting agendas or safety goals and targets for others to follow (e.g. King et
al., 201060
). More direct effects of leaders on others occur through direct challenge (Cummings, 200654
)
or through engaging with the workforce (Healey and Sugden, 201253
; Cummings, 200654
; Busby and
Collins, 200955
) demonstrating the value of the employee to the leader ((Poxon et al., 200761
), ensuring
effective two-way safety communication (Fleming, 199958
) and motivating employees (King et al.,
201060
). Direct effects also occur through empowering employees to problem solve and to make
decisions (Fuller and Vassie, 200556
). Finally, these direct effects might occur through developing skills,
especially in independent and inter-dependent working (Poxon et al., 200761
) and knowledge of safety
practices (Lekka and Healey, 201220
).
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 20]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Table 7. Policy reports examining leadership in a safety context
Author Date Focal Question Sample Context + Leadership level
Method Key findings relating to leadership
Lekka and Healey
20
2012 How does leadership deliver safety? What are the leadership styles and practices?
Level- not applicable. Literature Review of 40 papers. Transformational leadership promotes safety participation and safety compliance, and fosters a positive safety climate. Transactional leadership is associated with positive safety climate, safety behaviour and lower accident rates. High quality leader-member exchange relations encourage safety communication and reduce safety-related events.
Healey and Sugden
53
2012 Is it possible to develop high standards for H&S and a strong safety culture in the construction industry?
Construction Industry – building the Olympic Park.
Multiple levels.
Interviews and focus groups to generate 8 case studies, one for each dimension of Safety Climate Tool (which covers organizational commitment, H&S oriented behaviours, H&S trust, usability of procedures, engagement in H&S, peer group attitude, resources for H&S, accidents and near-miss reporting).
Engagement, worker involvement and organizational commitment are key elements to achieving high standards of H&S.
OECD17
2012 How can senior leaders ensure effective safety process governance?
Chemical, Oil and Gas industries (High hazard process industries).
Senior leaders (CEOs, Presidents, Board members).
Guidance note. Leadership practices include: encouraging safety voice; prioritizing safety; consistent application of safety policy; set goals; monitor performance; open communication; ensuring alignment between policy and practice.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 21]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Author Date Focal Question Sample Context + Leadership level
Method Key findings relating to leadership
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work
18
2012 What are the leadership factors that promote OSH behaviours among employees?
Multiple contexts.
Multiple levels.
Literature Review of 46 papers.
Analysis of 16 case studies.
17 practices categorised into 5 guiding principles:
Take responsibility for safety seriously; prioritise OSH and be consistent; ensure board commitment and involvement; open two-way communication; value employees and encourage participation.
Conchie and Moon
47
2010 What are the antecedents of leadership behaviours that emphasize safety, encourage employee involvement and challenge poor practice?
Construction Industry.
Supervisor – worker.
2 Steps: 10 focus groups with 69 supervisors and questionnaire with 82 supervisors and 285 workers.
Direct effects on active safety leadership include freedom of supervisor to operate (role autonomy), and number of hours with workers. Indirect effects include extent of colleague support for safety and organizational constraints (e.g. foreign labour skills, contractors).
Context is a key determinant of active safety leadership.
King, Lunn and Michaelis
60
2010 To what extent are directors aware of safety responsibility?, and how do they demonstrate it?
Cross-sector representation and also variation in terms of risk. 30 organizations responded from 153 organizations that were approached.
Multiple levels but not related.
75 face-to-face interviews with directors, H&S managers and shop floor workers in 30 organizations.
Leadership on safety is demonstrated by setting examples, setting goals and targets, motivating staff and earning respect. Some show care and generate loyalty.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 22]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Author Date Focal Question Sample Context + Leadership level
Method Key findings relating to leadership
Busby and Collins
55
2009 How does an organization manage itself to ensure safe working?
Off-shore oil industry in UK.
Multiple levels.
Review of accident reports. 77 interviews with HSE inspectors and a range of staff from technicians to production directors in 5 case study organizations newly entered the UK oil industry.
Leadership requires engagement with workers to socialize them in to organizational practices and procedures, which may not be adhered to through logical argument or lack of technical expertise. Rigour is part of leadership, and leadership is required to achieve rigour.
Poxon, Coupar, Findlay, Luckhurst, Stevens and Webster
61
2007 Does worker involvement improve H&S?
Cross-sectoral positioning organizations on a 2x2 matrix of (i) unitary/pluralist culture (degree of consensus), (ii) extent of hierarchical control.
Managers and employees.
Organizational documentation. Semi-structured -interviews with different functional groups. Employee focus groups.
Leaders define issues, set and share agendas. Model appropriate behaviours. Empower employees to problem-solve. Value expertise in others.
Develop soft skills in others, especially around independent and interdependent working..
Cummings54
2006 What constitutes effective health and safety management?
Construction industry. H&S Industry.
Level – not applicable.
10 Semi-structured interviews with experts (4 from construction, 3 H&S professionals, 3 academics).
Encourage worker commitment through engagement. Challenge behaviours.
Wright and James
48 2006 How do directors
exercise their responsibility for H&S?
Level – not applicable. Review of 3 HSE commissioned reports.
No clear outcomes for leader behaviours.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 23]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Author Date Focal Question Sample Context + Leadership level
Method Key findings relating to leadership
Fuller and Vassie
56
2005 What are the key inputs and outputs from the supervisory process?
Chemical industry.
Supervisor- worker.
Questionnaire distributed to 400 organizations in the UK chemical industry. 84 usable responses.
Hierarchical approach to leadership is common with the deployment of supervisors irrespective of risk-level. Leadership should encourage motivation, problem-solving and decision-making.
Shearn and Miller
49
2005 How involved are directors with Health and Safety?
Context not specified.
Directors.
Literature review. While guidance encourages H&S leadership from the top of the organizations, 26% companies do not. Motivations for involvement include compliance, moral responsibility, protection of reputation, financial benefits, employee morale.
Ward, Brazier and Lancaster
50
2004 What is supervision and how does it affect safety performance?
Level – not applicable. Literature review. Define supervisor in relation to different forms of organizing on a continuum of control from team to single manager. Main elements of supervisory role: directing work of others, allocating workload, planning and scheduling, instructing and monitoring actions, maintaining discipline, taking responsibility, accountability.
Brazier, Gait and Waite
57
2004 What is supervision and how does it affect safety performance?
Chemical industry.
Supervisor – worker.
Nine case studies of supervision models in organizations working in UK chemical and allied industries.
Supervision is a management function that can be delivered by an individual or a team. Operations were more hierarchically managed. Maintenance teams were self-managed.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 24]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Author Date Focal Question Sample Context + Leadership level
Method Key findings relating to leadership
O’Dea and Flin
51
2003 How does managerial leadership affect organizational safety outcomes?
Level – not applicable. Literature review contains 138 items.
Distinguishes 3 levels of management (senior, middle and front-line/team leader) each with unique responsibilities for safety. [Figure 6.1 and Table 6.1]
Gadd and Collins
52
2002 What are the features of safety culture and how do they affect safety performance?
Level – not applicable. Literature review of safety culture focussing on research from 1998 onwards. It refers to 78 items.
Management is a key determinant of safety culture, especially observed commitment and actions towards safety.
Ernst and Young
59
2000 How could senior managers influence improvements in managing H&S?
Multi-sector (incl. oil and gas, chemical, aerospace and mining) study to develop a model and resource pack.
26 interviews with senior figures in 9 leading organizations.
Leadership in 7 areas: business case, accountability, behaviour, integration, prioritisation, monitoring/measuring, learning.
Fleming58
1999 How does the supervisor role affect safety outcomes?
UK Oil industry.
Supervisor- worker.
Questionnaires sent to (i) 140 front-line supervisors, on 9 installations (ii) work groups of supervisors on same installations.
Significant positive supervisor behaviours were: valuing workers, visiting worksite, worker participation in decision making and effective safety communication.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 25]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Table 8 indicates the leadership practices identified in these empirical research reports and categorizes
the practices according to the four dimensions of transformational leadership and transactional
leadership. Communication may be incorporated across a number of dimensions.
These safety leadership practices are strongly characteristic of transformational leadership. Many of
these practices are echoed in the findings of the literature reviews studied here. Lekka and Healey
(2012)20
, for example, note that other studies show the importance of leader support for safety and
safety communication between management and workforce. Active involvement in safety and
enforcement of safety promotes perceptions of a positive safety climate and fosters employee
accountability and responsibility for safety. Gadd and Collins (2002)52
concur. They observed that
management commitment to safety reduced under-reporting of incidents and promoted a positive safety
culture, but often without indicating how this was achieved. O’Dea and Flin (2003)51
also agree and
develop a descriptive model that shows how safety leadership and the required actions differ according
to the level of the leader in the organizational hierarchy.
Senior managers demonstrate safety leadership through:
positive attitudes to safety by committing to safety policies and procedures;
ensuring safety is integral to competitiveness and profitability and safety;
assuring safety compliance; and
committing to developing trusting relationships with subordinates.
Middle managers (or managers of sites, typically construction sites or oil platforms which are the
focus of much empirical research) show safety leadership through:
demonstrating commitment to safety by interpreting and implementing safety policies positively;
prioritizing safety in work planning and scheduling;
being actively involved in safety by being visible in taking responsibility;
communicating openly; and
showing concern and appreciation for employees.
Safety leadership is demonstrated by supervisors and team leaders:
by support (giving open and fair feedback);
by involvement (in safety training, inspections and meetings); and
by being participative (encouraging teamwork and building trusting relationships).
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 26]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Table 8. Leadership practices identified in the empirically-based policy reports as they map onto the dimensions of
transformational – transactional leadership
Transformational Leadership dimensions Transactional Leadership
Authors Idealized Influence Inspirational Motivation
Intellectual Stimulation
Individual Consideration
Constructive leadership
Healey and Sugden53
Consistent implementation
Role Modelling
Clarity
Develop a safe environment
Team working
Prioritize safety
Involve others
Listen
Empower others
Train Reward
Set goals
Monitor
Give feedback
Conchie and Moon47
Communicate Voice
Communicate
Coach
Show concern
King, Lunn and Michaelis
60
Set an example
Be visible
Motivate others
Prioritize safety
Communicate
Seek feedback
Consult
Communicate
Care Set goals
Monitor
Busby and Collins55
Consistency Prioritize safety Engage others Develop working relations
Provide resources
Poxon, Coupar, Findlay, Luckhurst, Stevens and Webster
61
Model behaviours Define issues
Share agenda
Empower others
Communicate
Value others
Develop others
Set goals
Cummings54
Encourage commitment Challenge behaviours
Fuller and Vassie56
Be responsible Motivate others Communicate
Engage others
Problem solving
Decision making
Train
Brazier, Gait and Waite
57 Involve others
Communicate
Plan
Monitor performance
Fleming58
Be visible Prioritize safety Participative decision making
Value others
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 27]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Limitations of Transactional-Transformational Safety Leadership and Opportunities for Further Work Existing empirical studies of safety leadership adopting a transactional-transformational leadership
perspective typically investigate supervisor-worker relationships in high hazard settings (manufacturing,
oil and gas, construction) using a cross-sectional approach. With the exception of the work of Barling
and colleagues (Barling et al., 200226
; Kelloway et al., 200627
) there has been no empirical study of
leadership in service sector organizations, including retail or office environments. How transactional-
transformational leadership will affect safety outcomes in these low hazard service industry settings is
unclear. This is a striking omission when more than 80% of the UK workforce is employed in service
industries. It is also unclear whether the nature of transactional-transformational leadership will differ in
these settings from that found in high hazard settings where work groups may possibly be more close
knit and cohesive, creating different relationships between supervisor and worker.
The focus of existing empirical studies on supervisors and workers reveals a further research
opportunity to examine the effects of leader-follower relationships between other dyads in the
organization, most obviously between senior and middle managers. While some of the policy reports
have considered the role of directors on safety (King et al., 201060
), noting the importance of their
relationships with other workers (O’Dea and Flin, 200351
), in ensuring safety outcomes, more remains to
be done. Crucially, safety policies and practices must be communicated effectively from board-level to
front-line workers in any organization. How the relational dyads within this communication chain affect
the communication and implementation of safety practices and so organizational safety outcomes is
unclear. Moreover, the effects of leadership at each of these points in the chain may also differ and
consequently impact the overall delivery of organizational safety.
Although some of the policy reports adopted qualitative methods, most of the empirical studies were
based on the quantitative analysis of survey data. Furthermore, with few exceptions, the studies were
cross-sectional in nature. There is an opportunity therefore to take a case-based approach to examine
leadership of safety and the associated practices across the hierarchies within a single organization.
Moreover, using a longitudinal approach it will be possible to investigate the development of the leader-
follower relationship from transactional to transformational and how such changes affect safety
outcomes.
Finally, there appears to be a dearth of studies outside the UK and N. America. Comparative cross-
country studies of safety leadership may help to reveal internationally recognised best-practices for
safety leadership. These studies would also show how different policy contexts may affect the
relationship between safety leadership and safety outcomes.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 28]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX): Academic Literature LMX focuses on the dyadic social exchange processes between leader and follower, acknowledging
that leaders develop different exchange relationships with their followers thereby impacting differentially
important leader and member outcomes (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 199562
). As dyadic relationships develop
the early social exchanges, essentially between strangers or acquaintances, which are more
‘transactional’ in nature, change to become more ‘transformational’ in nature as the relationship
develops into a partnership (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 199562
). Thus, low LMX relationships align more
closely with descriptions of transactional leadership, while high LMX relationship align more closely with
the descriptions of transformational leadership (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 199562
). Leadership occurs when
leaders and followers develop effective relationships based on trust, respect and mutual obligations,
resulting in mutual and incremental influence to meet shared interests (Uhl-Bien, 200663
). This
exchange relationship may take one of two general forms (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 199562
) namely
relationships with an ‘in-group’ characterized by high degrees of trust, respect and obligation or with an
‘out-group’ where trust, respect and obligation are low. In the former case, special exchange
relationships develop with a small number of trusted subordinates who serve as assistants or advisors,
while in the latter case other exchange relationships are more formalized, based on role requirements
and job descriptions.
Six studies investigated the relationship between leaders and subordinate and its impact on safety
outcomes (see Table 9 for details). Most often the relationship was between a supervisor and a worker,
rather than exchanges between more senior dyads within the organization, for example, between
members of a senior management team and the middle managers. The study by Yagil and Luria
(2010)64
explored the relationship between managers and employees, although this is also a
relationship between positions lower in the organizational hierarchy. Hofmann et al., (2003)65
also
studied relationships between lower ranked members in a military hierarchy but in the context of teams.
The safety outcomes examined in these studies differed for each study. Some focused on accidents
and near-misses (Hofmann and Morgeson, 199910
; Michael et al., 200666
). Others explored LMX
relationships with safety citizenship behaviours (Hofmann et al., 200365
; Credo et al, 201067
), including
participation and communication (Kath et al., 201068
). Yagil and Luria (2010)64
investigated safety
compliance.
In each of these studies quantitative data obtained through surveys was used to correlate aspects of
relationship quality measured using the 7-point LMX scale (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 199562
) with particular
safety outcomes. The surveys collected other data using existing scales for different measures.
Measures of perceived organizational support were derived from Eisenberger et al., (1986)69
. Safety
climate was captured using Zohar’s (1980)32
scale, but often with modifications (e.g. Credo et al.,
201067
; Yagil and Luria, 201064
) or augmentation (Kath et al., 201068
) to investigate different outcomes
like safety peer pressure, management safety attitudes or management safety concerns. A scale for
safety communication was developed by Hofmann and Morgeson (1999)10
and employed by Kath et al.,
(2010)68
and Michael et al., (2006)66
. Barling et al.’s (2002)26
scale for safety related events was used to
investigate safety related events by Michael et al., (2006)66
and employee safety involvement by Credo
et al., (2010)67
. Single studies investigating specific dimensions like perceived organizational ethics
(Credo et al., 2010)67
, safety compliance (Yagil and Luria, 2010)64
, safety citizenship behaviours
(Hofmann et al., 2003)65
or safety commitment (Hofmann and Morgeson, 1999)10
developed their own
scales.
Apart from communication (e.g. Hofmann and Morgeson, 199910
) none of the six empirical studies
identify specific leadership practices that correlate with safety outcomes. They rely on practices implicit
within the 7-point LMX scale that contribute to trust, respect and obligation. The items in the scale
suggest at least the following leadership practices: giving feedback, problem solving, providing personal
support, decision-making, providing direction and clarity.
While each study investigated a different question, our primary conclusion is that improving the quality
of the relationship between leader and subordinate reduces accidents and improves safety. What is
less clear is how this may be achieved.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 29]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Table 9. Academic studies examining leadership in a safety context from a Leader-Member Exchange perspective
Author Date Focal Question + Focal safety outcome
Sample Context + Leadership
level
Sample Population
Method Key Findings
Credo, Armenakis, Feild and Young
67
2010 What influences employee safety involvement?, specifically how do LMX, perceived organizational support and perceived organizational ethics mediate management safety concerns?
Safety knowledge and safety behaviours of employees.
International drilling company in US.
Supervisor-worker relationship.
188 employees (64 project personnel + 124 field technicians) at 6 sites.
Cross sectional quantitative data.
On-line survey with measures of LMX, perceived organizational support, perceived organizational ethics, management safety concerns, employee safety involvement.
Management concerns to achieve positive employee safety knowledge and behaviours mediated by quality of relationship and employee perception of managerial and organizational support for safety.
Hofmann and Morgeson
10
1999 How do different forms of social exchange affect the raising of safety concerns, safety commitment and accidents?
Safety commitment and accidents.
Manufacturing plant producing commercial heating and air conditioning systems.
Supervisor-work group leader.
64 leaders of work groups and their supervisors.
Cross sectional quantitative data. The work group leader survey incorporated measures of LMX, perceived organizational support, and safety communication. Supervisors reported on safety commitment. Archival records provided accident data.
Higher quality relationships between employees and supervisor (LMX) improve safety communication, increase safety commitment and reduce accidents.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 30]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Author Date Focal Question + Focal safety outcome
Sample Context + Leadership
level
Sample Population
Method Key Findings
Hofmann, Morgesson and Gerras
65
2003 In the face of conflicting objectives how do individuals decide whether to behave safely or not?
Safety citizenship behaviour.
US military moving heavy equipment.
Team leader – team member relationship.
127 team members and 29 team leaders in 25 teams.
Cross sectional quantitative data. Survey with measures of LMX, safety climate, safety citizenship role definitions and safety citizenship behaviour.
Climate moderates relationship between leaders and subordinate and safety citizenship role definition. Where there is a positive safety climate, employees view safety behaviours as part of their formal role responsibilities. Leaders create effective working relationships and climate that emphasizes safety.
Kath, Marks and Ranney
68
2010 What influences employee safety communication with managers?
Safety communication.
Canadian Pacific Railways.
Supervisor – worker relationship.
636 mechanical employees.
Cross sectional quantitative data. Pencil and paper survey incorporating measures of upward safety communication, LMX, Perceived organizational support, and safety climate.
Employees discuss safety concerns with supervisors/managers when (i) relationship quality is high, (ii) they perceive that management are serious about safety, and (iii) job demands interfere with safety.
Michael, Guo, Wiedenbeck and Ray
66
2006 Do fewer safety related incidents occur if workers and supervisors have (1) open relationships? and (2) good safety communication?
Perceived and actual safety related events – accidents/near misses.
Wood product manufacturing in US.
Supervisor – worker relationship.
598 workers in 5 plants.
Cross sectional quantitative data. Pencil and paper survey with measures of LMX, job satisfaction, safety communication, safety related events. Archival records of safety-related events also included.
Inverse relationship between relationship quality and number of self-reported incidents, but not actual incidents.
No relationship between safety communication and self-reported incidents; communication is dependent on climate.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 31]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Author Date Focal Question + Focal safety outcome
Sample Context + Leadership
level
Sample Population
Method Key Findings
Yagil and Luria
64 2010 Can quality of
relationship between worker and supervisor compensate for poor safety climate?
Employee safety compliance.
Manufacturing industries (food, plastics, chemicals and metal) in Israel.
Manager – employee relationship.
673 employees and 46 managers in 11 organizations.
Cross sectional quantitative data.
Questionnaire with measures for safety climate (organizational and group level), quality of relationship with co-workers and with supervisor (LMX), and employee safety compliance.
Workers follow supervisor’s perception of safety. Social support (with colleagues and supervisors) and climate combine to create the highest levels of safety behaviour.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 32]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Limitations of LMX Studies of Safety Leadership and Opportunities for Further Work There are a number of limitations with these existing studies of safety leadership from an LMX
perspective. First, as noted above, the investigated relationships characteristically focus on supervisor-
subordinate relationships. The relationship between other non-supervisor safety leaders and their
subordinates and the impact of this on organizational and individual safety outcomes warrants
investigation, especially if safety policies and practices are developed at more senior levels in the
organization before being implemented by middle managers.
Secondly, the studies occur in high hazard settings, principally manufacturing. The effect of relationship
quality on safety outcomes may be equally important in low hazard settings that describe many service
sector organizations and civil service occupations. Future research could investigate these
environments.
Thirdly, all of the studies are based on cross-sectional survey designs. Longitudinal studies using
qualitative methods to investigate how changes in relationship quality affect safety outcomes would
provide more definitive explanations of effect outcomes, which are unachievable through correlations
alone.
Fourthly, Graen and Uhl-Bien’s (1995)62
original work notes that studies taking a relationship-based
approach to leadership have evolved through a series of four stages from consideration of differentiated
dyads within a work unit, through validation of differentiated relationship for organizational outcomes
and exploration of dyadic relationship development, to investigating the assemblage of dyads into larger
collectives. The studies of safety leadership from an LMX perspective have largely remained at the
second stage (the validation of differentiated relationships for organizational outcomes). The cross-
sectional nature of the empirical studies precludes the exploration of the development of the leader-
follower dyad and its impact on safety outcomes. No studies have yet explored how differentiated dyads
between a leader and different followers develop within a network of relationships and how they
mutually influence each other to create safety outcomes. Mapping task interdependencies and
leadership relationships (using social network analysis) may enable the investigation of patterns of
relationship quality and how these dyadic relationships might influence each other to generate safety
outcomes.
Finally, the studies have been conducted in a mainly N. American and non-European context. National
cultural differences affect the ways in which relationships are established and developed. Such
differences may have a significant effect on whether relationship quality affects safety outcomes.
Furthermore, the simple conclusion that improving relationship quality positively affects safety outcomes
may be simplistic, especially in settings that cross national or cultural boundaries. At an organizational
level, businesses within the same organization may be located in different countries (e.g. MNCs). How
relationships between leaders and subordinates influence safety outcomes even in the same
organization with the same policies may be different in Asia than in Europe for example and perhaps
even between countries within Europe. A further complication arises when employees come from
different ethnic backgrounds. How these individuals interact to establish relationships and how these
differences in ethnicity impact safety outcomes has not been reported even in those studies examined
in the initial stages of literature reviewing for this report.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 33]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Safety Leadership: Practitioner Literature 19 articles were identified from the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) practitioner journal –
Professional Safety –that had material pertaining to safety leadership. According to these articles safety
leadership is fraught with difficulty, not only because of the commonly perceived tension between safety
and productivity (Carillo, 2005)70
, which creates ambiguity, but also because safety leaders are
commonly squeezed between senior leaders and operations (Forck, 201271
). These difficulties are
exacerbated because leading on safety is equated with organizational change (Pater, 201272
),
presuming that organizations must transition from a low level of safety performance to a higher level of
safety performance and that this transition will be resisted. Consequently, several articles link safety
leadership to the development of a safety culture (e.g. Pater 201272
; 201173
; Petersen, 200474
; Krause
and Weekley, 200575
).
Other papers document a variety of leadership practices that may affect safety outcomes. These are
synthesized across articles and summarized in a list of 8 practices in Table 10. Some of these
practices, like communication, contain multiple elements which could be disaggregated. Others, like
setting goals and monitoring performance, could be combined to create a new practice of ensuring
accountability, which was mentioned by Krause and Weekley (2005)75
only.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 34]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Table 10. Leadership practices identified in articles published by different authors in the practitioner journal “Professional Safety”
Leadership Practices Drennan and Richey
76
Krause and Weekley
75
Kapp77
Geller78,79
Mathis80
Williams81
Forck71
Petersen74
Set goals / define roles X X X X X
Monitor performance X X X X
Educate / train X X X X
Role model X X X X
Communicate (share information, seek ideas and opinions, listen)
X X X X
Involve others / participation / collaboration X X
Show care / concern / interest X X
Reward / give feedback / recognise good work
X X X X
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 35]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Developments in Leadership Theory and Implications for Safety Leadership The relationship established between the leader and follower is vital to understanding ‘traditional’ forms
of leadership, two of which (Transactional-Transformational and LMX) are described above. Gordon
(2002)82
presents a chronological outline of leadership theories through the 20th Century, beginning with
trait theories focusing on the attributes and qualities that distinguished leaders from followers and style
theories that examine leader behaviours. These were followed by theories of leadership that focused
particularly on the relationship between leader and follower. These included transactional leadership,
which viewed leaders through the eyes of the follower, explaining leadership in terms of the transaction,
or exchange between the two parties. Alternatively transformational leadership reached beyond tangible
inducements seeking to inspire and motivate followers through vision, persuasion and support. LMX
(Graen and Uhl-Bien, 199562
) integrated these two relational approaches to account for the evolution of
relationships between leader and followers.
Authentic Leadership A more recent development of transformational leadership is authentic leadership, which Lekka and
Healey (2012)20
suggest is the way forward for safety leadership. In their review of authentic leadership
Gardner et al., (2011)83
list 13 definitions of the construct. Avolio et al., (2009)21
define it as “a pattern of
transparent and ethical leader behaviour that encourages openness in sharing information needed to
make decisions while accepting followers inputs, pg. 423”. Four elements form the core of authentic
leadership (Walumbwa et al., 2008)84
:
1. balanced processing, where relevant data are analyzed objectively before decisions are made;
2. internalized moral perspective, where a personal moral compass guides and regulates
personal behaviour. Shamir and Eilam (2005)85
describe authentic leaders as being “true to
themselves” rather than reflecting the views of others. They are motivated by convictions not
personal benefit and act according to personal values and conviction;
3. relational transparency, describes behaviours that promote open sharing of information and
feelings; and
4. self-awareness, which describes individual awareness of strengths and weaknesses as well as
how others in the organization view them and their leadership.
Although authentic leadership shares many of the components of transformational leadership Avolio
and Gardner (2005)86
highlight a crucial distinction. “Authentic leaders are anchored by their own deep
sense of self, pg 329”, and communicate their values and principles through their actions while
transformational leaders, while perhaps also have this deep sense of self, also transform others by
casting a vision, inspiring through ideas or attending to needs (Avolio and Gardner, 2005)86
.
Little research has conceptualised safety leadership as authentic leadership. The work of Eid et al.,
(2012)87
is an exception. They suggest that authentic leadership could directly influence safety
outcomes in safety critical organizations, but this has not been tested empirically. Adopting this
perspective, two questions pertaining to safety leadership are immediately evident. The first would
explore the values and beliefs of individual safety leaders around safety and their importance to that
individual leader. This may help to understand better the prioritization of safety amongst the competing
tensions of organizational life. The second focuses on how organizational data are analysed objectively
in relation to safety and how personal biases are minimized in this process and alternative perspectives
elicited.
Importance of Context: Contextual Leadership In general, leadership theories have focused on the relationship between leader and follower. However,
recent reviews of leadership have emphasized the importance of context (Osborn et al., 200288
; Porter
and McLaughlin, 200689
; Drath et al., 200890
) and the “process of leadership” (Gordon, 200282
; Denis et
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 36]
Cranfield University, School of Management
al., 201291
). According to Porter and McLaughlin (2006)89
in their overview of 16 years of leadership
research, organizational context had largely been ignored, despite calls to give this greater attention.
Osborn et al., (2002)88
noted that the effectiveness of leadership was largely dependent on context.
Seven dimensions of organizational context were reported by Porter and McLaughlin (2006)89
to
influence leadership, in alphabetical order these were: culture/climate; goals/purposes;
people/composition; processes; state/condition; structure; time. From the perspective of safety
leadership, future studies could compare leader behaviours, roles and practices in organizations
differing according to, for example, organizational structures (size or degree of formalization),
organizational processes (mode of governance, technologies used), people/composition (variation in
demographics or skills) or time (tenure of leadership).
While supporting this view that organizational context may affect leadership, Osborn et al., (2002)88
demand a more radical change in perspective on leadership seeking to understand how changes in the
macro-environment might affect leadership. Acknowledging that the environment surrounding
organizations is no longer stable, but may be better characterized as volatile, uncertain, complex and
ambiguous (VUCA) (Bennett and Lemoine, 201492
; Horney et al., 201093
), Osborn et al., (2002)88
consider how leadership at different levels in an organization might be affected in four different
hypothesized scenarios (stability, crisis, dynamic equilibrium and edge of chaos). They note that future
leadership studies in contexts that are not stable should emphasize collective rather than individual
leadership and the dynamics and process of leadership.
Technical – Adaptive Leadership Prior work by Heifetz and Laurie (1997)
94 contrasts the work of the leader in technical (or routine)
situations with that in adaptive situations, or alternatively the differences in the responsibilities of
leaders operating in stable or dynamic organizational environments. In dynamic contexts demanding
adaptability and flexibility they contend that leaders should identify challenges and frame issues, should
involve everyone throughout the organization leveraging their capabilities, should challenge established
norms, should encourage alternative perspectives to emerge and should not prescribe solutions. These
clearly differ from the dominant principles of current safety leaders, which typically would seek to clarify
roles and responsibilities and maintain norms and offer solutions (Zohar, 2002b)13
.
From existing academic safety literature it is unclear how safety leadership should be conducted in
dynamic organizational environments. Existing understanding of safety leadership is largely derived
from studies conducted in stable environments. This may not reflect current and future organizational
realities; the contexts in which future safety leadership will be required.
‘Plural’ Leadership More recent reviews of leadership (e.g. Thorpe et al., 2011
95) consider perspectives on leadership that
reach beyond the earlier unitary views of leaders as individuals. By considering that leadership skills
and responsibilities can be dispersed or shared throughout an organization these perspectives draw
attention to the process of leadership rather than the person as leader (Gordon, 200282
). Denis et al.,
(2012)91
describe these leadership forms as ‘plural leadership’ and identify four distinct streams of
scholarship which make sense of a confusing array of leadership studies, where terms such as
“shared”, “distributed”, “collective”, “collaborative”, “relational” or “post-heroic” are often used loosely
and interchangeably.
The first stream of ‘plural’ leadership research considers mutual or shared leadership within groups
where a team of group members collectively lead each other. This more participatory approach to
leadership is encouraged by transformational leadership and is supported by earlier studies focusing on
the emergence of leadership in groups (e.g. Bales and Slater, 195596
). These studies noted the need
for individuals to play different and complementary roles, embracing “task functions” and “expressive
functions” in the leadership of the group. This stream assumes that individuals within the organization
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 37]
Cranfield University, School of Management
are motivated to share leadership responsibilities. It also assumes an absence of opportunism or ‘free
riding’ by team members. It also anticipates formal management intervention to encourage its adoption
and practice. This perspective could be adopted to examine safety leadership in team-based
organizations where the skill level of team members is often high. These have not commonly been the
subject of safety research, perhaps because they are more typical of low risk environments. It is unclear
whether these contexts are necessarily low risk or simply that shared leadership mitigates the inherent
risk (Black and Baldwin, 201297
). The applicability of this perspective to teams of less skilled workers or
to heterogeneous teams comprising managers and other employees is unexplored.
A second stream of ‘plural’ leadership research explores the circumstances where a small number of
individuals pool their leadership capacities to co-lead others. Here the co-leaders play roles that are
specialized (i.e. each operating in particular areas of expertise), differentiated (i.e. avoiding overlap) and
complementary (i.e. cover all the required areas of intervention). Gronn (2002)98
suggested that they
conjointly exert leadership, having a collectively agreed and common purpose, characterized by
reciprocal influence. This however is not unproblematic, particularly if members adhere to different
logics as may occur for example between a doctor and a manager in a healthcare setting. In an
organizational context the interplay between members of the senior management team or board,
especially if they champion different logics, may have implications for the effective leadership and
delivery of organizational safety. A case study approach could be used to investigate these interactions.
A third stream of ‘plural’ leadership research embraces much of the work on distributed leadership
(Bolden, 201199
; Fitzsimmons et al., 2011100
; Spillane, 2006101
), where leadership roles are dispersed or
spread across organizational levels over time, so that multiple actors take on leadership roles at
appropriate moments exerting influence jointly. Empirical studies are typically case-based (e.g.
Buchanan et al., 2007102
). Distributed leadership, insofar as it is seen to be democratic, encouraging
collective capacity-building and increasing efficiency and effectiveness by better utilizing expertise
(Mayrowetz, 2008103
) can assume a normative position in the leadership of organizations, although this
assumption has been challenged by the work of Currie and colleagues (Currie et al., 2009104
; 2011105
;
Martin et al., 2008106
). Studies of how leadership is spread across people, within organizations and over
time, to achieve organizational goals needs to be enriched. This could be achieved by exploring how
practices are shaped by organizational situations and processes, perhaps by considering how objects
and artefacts mediate linkages between people (Denis et al., 201291
). Safety studies for example could
explore the role of IT in distributing safety leadership throughout a dispersed organization with multiple
sites.
A fourth stream of ‘plural’ leadership research arises from a social constructionist epistemology and
views leadership as arising from interactions and relationship between organizational members (Uhl-
Bien, 200663
). Leadership is constituted in the process of relating and does not reside in the individual.
Consequently, communication is central to this stream. This may encourage an exploration of how
safety leadership is enacted and produced between two (or more) people, for example, a supervisor
and a worker. The focus would be on the in situ “performance” of leadership. Moreover, it could build on
existing work focused on safety communication (Conchie et al., 201231
).
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 38]
Cranfield University, School of Management
DISCUSSION
Legally everyone in the workplace is responsible for safety and so safe working is integral to every job
role, including those of organizational leaders. However, research studies of safety leadership reported
in academic literature or policy reports invariably encourage a narrow view of safety leadership,
focusing exclusively on the roles and practices of an individual, and how the individual promotes safety
and encourages safe working practices. This view separates these practices from their wider
responsibilities within an organization. Specialist practitioner literature, by its very nature, also
reinforces this narrow view. This view makes it difficult to discern those leadership practices that
contribute solely to safety outcomes from those leadership practices that influence organizational
outcomes more generally and consequently impact safety albeit indirectly. For example, effective
communication between supervisor and worker is widely espoused in the safety leadership literature as
an important leadership practice for promoting safe working. It is probable that effective communication
will affect other organizational outcomes too. It is unclear therefore whether the practices associated
with the delivery of different safety outcomes by safety leaders identified from the reviewed literature
are particular to safety leadership or simply reflect good leadership practices in general, as the HSE
advocates.
In order to provide a coherent structure, the practices have been bundled into 3 categories (safety
coaching, safety controlling and safety caring: see Table 11) corresponding to a framework developed
in an empirical study of Taiwanese Universities by Wu et al., (2008)14
. Bundling practices together is not
uncommon in other managerial fields, for example, Human Resource Management (HRM) uses the
Ability-Motivation-Opportunity (AMO) framework (Appelbaum, et al., 2000107
) combining HR practices
according to whether they influence an individual’s ability, motivation or opportunity. This bundling of
safety leader practices into safety controlling, safety coaching or safety caring may help researchers to
explore particular aspects of safety leadership and practitioners to develop a diagnostic tool kit to
challenge specific aspects of safety leadership in organizations.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 39]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Table 11. Safety leadership practices synthesized from different sources based on a Coaching-Caring-Controlling model of safety leadership
Source of Safety Leader Practices
Academic Policy Practice Summary generic practices
Safety Coaching
Demonstrate Commitment
Prioritize safety
Encourage open discussions
Talk about values and beliefs
Provide direction
Problem solve
Role model
Set an example
Be visible
Prioritize safety
Motivate others
Involve others
Empower others
Coach
Role model
Educate
Train
Involve others / Participation
Role model
Prioritize safety
Involve others
Empower others
Train
Coach
Be visible
Safety Caring
Provide support
Express Satisfaction
Listen to safety concerns
Demonstrate how to work safely
Support
Care
Show concern
Maintain a safe working environment
Share agenda
Communicate
Develop a safe environment
Listen
Care
Consult
Develop working relationships / team work
Value others
Develop others
Show care / Concern
Communicate (Share information / seek ideas / Listen)
Communicate
Listen
Show concern
Care
Support
Create and maintain a safe working environment
Value others
Develop others
Safety Controlling
Monitor
Reward
Assure Compliance
Reward
Set goals
Monitor performance
Set goals / define roles
Monitor Performance
Reward / give feedback
Set Goals
Monitor Performance
Reward
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 40]
Cranfield University, School of Management
HSE guidelines (e.g. HSE, 20125) on safety leadership differentiate the leader and the manager and
their respective responsibilities for safety. Similar distinctions are made in their guidance on ‘Managing
for Health and Safety’ (HSE, 20134). This suggests perhaps that safety leader roles can be
differentiated from safety manager roles and that observed safety practices can be similarly
disaggregated. O’Dea and Flin’s (2003)51
review noted a similar differentiation of safety roles and
practices across the hierarchy of an organization. Moreover, a comparison of the practices of safety
leaders with the 11 features that characterize managerial work (Hales, 1986108
; 1999109
) reveals
considerable overlap between the two lists, implying that what is often described as safety leadership
practices is actually management practice. Those practices that, in this review, are bundled together as
safety controlling, including setting goals, monitoring and rewarding are management practices and
resemble those features associated with transactional leadership (Bass, 198522
) and with the technical
leadership dimension of technical-adaptive leadership (Heifetz and Laurie, 199794
). There are some
practices, especially those associated with safety coaching or safety caring that more closely resemble
transformational leadership characteristics (see Table 8) or the adaptive dimension of technical–
adaptive leadership and which, perhaps, might be described as safety leadership rather than
management.
Most of the academic studies on safety leadership are cross-sectional preventing an investigation of the
causal relationship between particular leadership activities and safety outcomes. This is compounded
by the absence of any systematic study of safety leadership (O’Dea and Flin, 200351
). The focal
questions in the academic literature and policy reports vary from study to study so that there is no
coherent evidence base linking leadership practices to particular outcomes. This review has attempted
to piece the diverse sources of evidence together. Safety outcomes at an individual level comprise
safety participation and safety compliance, which are asserted to lead to reductions both in injury rates
and in the occurrence of safety-related incidents. How these benefits are achieved is unclear. Safety
outcomes occur also at an organizational level, for example, in the creation of a safety culture. Safety
leadership is perceived to be a necessary pre-cursor for creating a safety climate, as the earlier CBI
(1990)1 and ACSNI (1993)
2 reports assert. However it is unclear which specific safety leadership
practices create a safety culture.
It is noteworthy that many of the studies reported in the academic literature use quantitative data
seeking to draw correlations between measures of leader activity and measures of outcomes. In
contrast the studies reported in the policy reports are characteristically qualitative in nature seeking
often to investigate the diversity of practices used by specific groups in different contexts. This suggests
that a mixed methods approach may be more appropriate for investigating safety leadership in detail.
While the guidance emphasizes leadership in general, or acknowledges leadership at different
hierarchical levels in an organization (for example, four levels of hierarchy are implicit in HSG654),
empirical studies focus mostly on a single level, characteristically, supervisors or occasionally Directors
on Boards (Smallman and John, 2001110
). There is very little empirical investigation of safety leadership
at middle or senior management levels or of leader-follower relationships other than between supervisor
and front-line worker. The extent to which the proposed bundles of leadership practices (Table 11)
apply to these different managerial levels and whether they need to be augmented with other practices
or adapted to better fit other dyadic relationships is unknown.
Many of the studies have investigated safety leadership in hierarchical organizations in high hazard
settings, with the exception of the work of Barling and colleagues26
in Canada. The relevance of the
proposed bundles of leadership practices (Table 11) to less hazardous settings remains to be
investigated. Similarly their applicability to less formally hierarchical organizations also requires
investigation. These latter contexts may also be better suited to the application of alternative
conceptualizations of leadership such as shared or distributed leadership rather than transformational-
transactional leadership or LMX. These alternative views may allow the exploration of whether or not
safety outcomes are a shared concern of multiple actors either working separately or collectively (Currie
and Lockett, 2011111
).
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 41]
Cranfield University, School of Management
CONCLUSION
Operational safety in organizations and the safety behaviours of employees is characteristically
attributed to a positive safety culture, which in turn reflects positive safety leadership. Two principal
groups of individuals responsible for safety leadership are evident in the literature. The first group
identified only in the policy reports comprise members of the senior management team, mainly
Directors. The second group investigated mainly in the academic literature are supervisors of front-line
workers. The role played by other managers in leading on safety issues and how it may be similar or
different to either of these groups is not considered.
Interestingly, the leadership practices identified for these two groups are remarkably similar, even
though one focuses solely on front-line workers and the other has a wider remit. The practices may be
summarized into three broad categories. Safety controlling covers those practices involved with setting
goals, monitoring performance and rewarding behaviours, which are focused on current circumstances
and are more managerial in nature. Safety caring covers more relational practices including showing
concern and care, listening, supporting, creating and developing a safe working environment and
valuing others. These practices are focused on other people. Safety coaching has a future orientation
and the practices include role modelling, prioritizing safety, empowering and involving others, training
and coaching and being visible. Such practices more clearly demonstrate leadership.
All of the studies of safety leadership reviewed have taken a relational perspective between the leaders
and their followers. Often this is through a transformational - transactional perspective or LMX theory.
These relational perspectives consider leaders as individuals. However there are other
conceptualizations of leadership in the wider leadership literature that include ‘plural’ leadership or
technical-adaptive leadership. These may have application for safety and might consequently reveal
different safety leaders beyond Directors and supervisors and alternative leadership practices. Current
narrow conceptualizations of safety leadership may constrain the breadth of practices identified as part
of the safety leader’s arsenal, leaving more to be discovered.
Many of the studies fail to define safety leadership assuming that those leadership practices that deliver
the measured employee safety outcomes, principally safety compliance and safety participation, are the
key constituents. How these practices substantively differ from conventional leadership practices is
unclear. Safety leadership therefore may be defined simply by those outcomes that are the focus of
leader attention and their practices to achieve those outcomes, in this case safety. Safety then
becomes another item on the agenda of an organization’s leaders and must compete for attention with
other strategic issues like productivity, customer service and share-holder value. To avoid this pitfall
safety must be incorporated into the satisfactory delivery of these other strategic deliverables.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 42]
Cranfield University, School of Management
REFERENCES
(1)
CBI. Developing a Safety Culture: Business for Safety. Confederation of British Industry, 1990.
(2)
HSC, Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations. ACSNI Study Group on Human
Factors. Third Report. Organising for Safety. Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear
Installations. HSE, 1993.
(3) HSE. Successful Health and Safety Management (HSG65), HSE, 1991.
(4)
HSE. Managing for health and safety (HSG65). HSE, 2013.
(5) HSE. Leadership and worker involvement toolkit. Good health and safety leadership. HSE, 2012.
(6) HSE. Leadership for the major hazard industries INDG277(rev). HSE, 2004.
(7) IET. Safety Culture. Health and Safety Briefing Number 7. The Institute of Engineering and
Technology. 2012.
(8) HSE. Leadership in Health and Safety: The Essential Role of the Board. Judith Hackitt CBE, HSE
Chair - Annual Rivers Lecture 18 March 2009.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/speeches/transcripts/hackitt180309.htm
(9) HSE. Directors’ responsibilities for health and safety. INDG343. HSE, 2002.
(10) Hofmann D A and Morgeson F P. Safety-related behaviour as a social exchange: the role of
perceived organizational support and Leader-Member Exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology:
1999: 84 (2); 286-296.
(11) Zohar D. The effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate, and assigned priorities on minor
injuries in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior 2002a: 23 (1); 75-92.
(12) Kapp E. The influence of supervisor leadership practices and perceived group safety climate on
employee safety performance. Safety Science 2012: 50 (4); 1119-1124.
(13) Zohar D. Modifying supervisory practices to improve subunit safety: a leadership-based
intervention model. Journal of Applied Psychology 2002b: 87 (1); 156-163.
(14) Wu T-C, Li C-C, Chen C-H and Shu C-M. Interaction effects of organizational and individual
factors on safety leadership in college and university laboratories. Journal of Loss Prevention in
the Process Industries 2008: 21 (3); 239-254.
(15) Tranfield D, Denyer D and Smart P. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed
management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management 2003: 14
(3); 207-222.
(16) Denyer D and Tranfield D. Producing a systematic review. In: Buchanan D A and Bryman A
(eds). The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, London: Sage Publications,
2009. 671-89.
(17) OECD. Corporate governance for process safety: Guidance for senior leaders in high hazard
industries. OECD Environment, Health and Safety Chemical Accidents Programme. June 2012.
(18) European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. Leadership and Occupational Safety and
Health (OSH): an expert analysis. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2012.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 43]
Cranfield University, School of Management
(19) Jones R. What practitioners do: A survey of UK Registered Safety Practitioners to determine their
roles and tasks. 2005.
http://www.iosh.co.uk/~/media/Documents/Books%20and%20resources/Published%20research/
What_practitioners_do.ashx
(20) Lekka C and Healey N. A review of the literature on effective leadership behaviours for safety.
HSE, 2012. http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr952.htm
(21) Avolio B J, Walumbwa F O and Weber T J. Leadership: current theories, research, and future
directions. Annual Review of Psychology 2009: 60; 421-449.
(22) Bass B M. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press, 1985.
(23) Hoffmeister K, Gibbons A, Johnson S, Cigularov K, Chen P and Rosecrance J. The differential
effects of transformational leadership facets on employee safety. Safety Science 2014: 62; 68-78.
(24) Luria G, Zohar D and Erev I. The effect of workers’ visibility on effectiveness of intervention
programs: Supervisory-based safety interventions. Journal of Safety Research 2008: 39 (3); 273-
280.
(25) Zohar D and Luria G. The use of supervisory practices as leverage to improve safety behavior: a
cross-level intervention model. Journal of Safety Research 2003: 34 (5); 567-577.
(26) Barling J, Loughlin C and Kelloway E K. Development and test of a model linking safety-specific
transformational leadership and occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology 2002: 87 (3);
488-496.
(27) Kelloway E K, Mullen J and Francis L. Divergent effects of transformational and passive
leadership on employee safety. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2006: 11 (1): 76-86.
(28) Mullen J E and Kelloway E K. Safety leadership: a longitudinal study of the effects of
transformational leadership on safety outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology 2009: 82 (2); 253-272.
(29) Inness M, Turner N, Barling J and Stride C B. Transformational leadership and employee safety
performance: a within-person, between-person job design. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology 2010: 15 (3); 279-290.
(30) Conchie S and Donald I. The moderating role of safety-specific trust on the relation between
safety-specific leadership and safety citizenship behaviors. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology 2009: 14 (2); 137-147.
(31) Conchie S, Taylor P and Donald I. Promoting safety voice with safety-specific transformational
leadership: The mediating role of two dimensions of trust. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology 2012: 17 (1); 105-115.
(32) Zohar D. Safety climate in industrial organizations: theoretical and applied implications. Journal of
Applied Psychology 1980: 65 (1); 96-102.
(33) Neal A, Griffin M A and Hart P M. The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and
individual behaviour. Safety Science 2000: 34 (1); 99-109.
(34) Neal A and Griffin M A. A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety
motivation, safety behaviour, and accidents at the individual and group levels. Journal of Applied
Psychology 2006: 91 (4); 946-953.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 44]
Cranfield University, School of Management
(35) Mearns K, Whitaker S M and Flin R. Safety climate, safety management practice and safety
performance. Safety Science 2003: 41 (8); 641-680.
(36) Silva S, Lima M L and Baptista C. OSCI: An organizational and safety climate inventory. Safety
Science 2004: 42 (3); 205-220.
(37) Costa P T and McCrae R R. The five-factor model of personality and its relevance to personality
disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders 1992: 6 (4); 343-359.
(38) Dahl O and Olsen E. Safety compliance on offshore platforms: A multi-sample survey on the role
of perceived leadership involvement and work climate. Safety Science 2013: 54; 17- 26.
(39) Clarke S and Ward K. The Role of Leader Influence Tactics and Safety Climate in Engaging
Employees' Safety Participation. Risk Analysis 2006: 26 (5); 1175-1185.
(40) Lu C S and Yang C S. Safety leadership and safety behaviour in container terminal operations.
Safety Science 2010: 48 (2); 123-134.
(41) Griffin M A and Neal A. Perceptions of safety at work: a framework for linking safety climate to
safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
2000: 5 (3); 347-358.
(42) Zohar D. A group-level model of safety climate: testing the effect of group climate on
microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology 2000: 85 (4); 587-596.
(43) Bass B M and Avolio B J. Transformational leadership development: manual for the multifactor
leadership questionnaire Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1990.
(44) Bass B M and Avolio B J. Full range leadership development: manual for the MLQ. Palo Alto, CA:
Mind Garden, 1997.
(45) Bass B M and Avolio B J. MLQ: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, 2nd
Edition. Sampler set,
Technical Report, Leader form, Rater form and scoring key for MLQ form 5X-short. Redwood
City, CA: Mind Garden, 2002.
(46) Avolio B J and Bass B M. Multifactor leadership questionnaire: manual and sampler set. 3rd
Edition. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden, 2004.
(47) Conchie S and Moon S. Promoting active safety leadership. IOSH, 2010.
http://www.iosh.co.uk/supervisors
(48) Wright F and James P. Directors’ responsibilities for health and safety: the findings of two peer
reviews of published research. HSE, 2006. http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr451.pdf
(49) Shearn P and Miller M. Director Leadership of Health and Safety. Report Number HSL/2005/21.
Health and Safety Laboratory, 2005.
(50) Ward R, Brazier A and Lancaster R. Different types of supervision and the impact on safety in the
chemical and allied industries. Literature review. HSE, 2004.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr292a.pdf
(51) O’Dea A and Flin R. The role of managerial leadership in determining workplace safety
outcomes. HSE, 2003. http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr044.htm
(52) Gadd S and Collins A M. Safety Culture: A review of the literature. HSE, 2002.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/2002/hsl02-25.pdf
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 45]
Cranfield University, School of Management
(53) Healey N and Sugden C. Safety culture on the Olympic Park. HSE, 2012.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr942.htm
(54) Cummings R. Expert views on the evidence base for effective health and safety management
(phase 2). HSE, 2006. http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/2006/hsl06109.pdf
(55) Busby J S and Collins A. Risk leadership and organisational type. HSE, 2009.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr756.pdf
(56) Fuller C and Vassie L. Benchmarking employee supervisory processes in the chemical industry.
HSE, 2005. http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr312.pdf
(57) Brazier A, Gait A and Waite P. Different types of supervision and the impact on safety in the
chemical and allied industries. (part 2 of 3). HSE, 2004.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr292.htm
(58) Fleming M. Effective supervisory safety leadership behaviours in the offshore oil and gas
industry. HSE, 1999. http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/otopdf/1999/oto99065.pdf
(59) Ernst and Young. Development of a leadership resource pack. HSE, 2000.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/otopdf/2000/oto00098.pdf
(60) King K, Lunn S and Michaelis C. Director Leadership Behaviour Research. HSE, 2010.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr816.pdf
(61) Poxon B, Coupar W, Findlay J, Luckhurst D, Stevens R and Webster J. Using soft people skills to
improve worker involvement in health and safety. HSE, 2007.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr580.pdf
(62) Graen G B and Uhl-Bien M. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-
member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain
perspective. The Leadership Quarterly 1995: 6 (2); 219-247.
(63) Uhl-Bien M. Relational leadership theory: exploring the social processes of leadership and
organizing. The Leadership Quarterly 2006: 17 (6); 654-676.
(64) Yagil D and Luria G. Friends in need: the protective effect of social relationships under low-safety
climate. Group and Organization Management 2010: 35 (6); 727-750.
(65) Hofmann D A, Morgeson F P and Gerras S J. Climate as a moderator of the relationship between
leader-member exchange and content specific citizenship: safety climate as an exemplar. Journal
of Applied Psychology 2003: 88 (1); 170-178.
(66) Michael J H, Guo Z G, Wiedenbeck J K and Ray C D. Production supervisor impacts on
subordinates’ safety outcomes: an investigation of leader-member exchange and safety
communication. Journal of Safety Research 2006: 37 (5); 469-477.
(67) Credo K, Armenakis A, Feild H and Young R. Organizational Ethics, Leader-Member Exchange,
and Organizational Support: Relationships with Workplace Safety. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies 2010: 17 (4); 325-334.
(68) Kath L M, Marks K M and Ranney J. Safety climate dimensions, leader-member exchange, and
organizational support as predictors of upward safety communication in a sample of rail industry
workers. Safety Science 2010: 48 (5); 643-650.
(69) Eisenberger R, Huntington R, Hutchison S and Sowa D. Perceived organization support. Journal
of Applied Psychology 1986: 71 (3); 500-507.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 46]
Cranfield University, School of Management
(70) Carillo R A. Safety Leadership: managing the paradox. Professional Safety July 2005: 31-34.
(71) Forck M. Why safety leadership is hard: 7 secrets to help you succeed. Professional Safety
October 2012: 34-35.
(72) Pater R. Cultural Leadership raising the level: Part 1. Professional Safety March 2012: 28-30.
(73) Pater R. Six safety leadership strategies: energizing and sustaining safety performance and
culture. Professional Safety October 2011: 16-18.
(74) Petersen D. Leadership and Safety Excellence: a positive culture drives performance.
Professional Safety October 2004: 28-32.
(75) Krause T R and Weekley T. Safety Leadership: a four factor model for establishing a high-
functioning organization. Professional Safety November 2005: 34-40.
(76) Drennan F S and Richey D. Skills-based leadership: the first line supervisor – part II. Professional
Safety March 2012: 50-54.
(77) Kapp E A. Leadership alone is not enough. Professional Safety May 2012: 10.
(78) Geller E S. 10 leadership qualities for a total safety culture. Professional Safety May 2000: 38-41.
(79) Geller E S. People based leadership: enriching a work culture for world-class safety. Professional
Safety March 2008: 29-36.
(80) Mathis T. Be an effective safety leader. Professional Safety January 2013: 19.
(81) Williams J H. Improving safety leadership: using industrial/organizational psychology to enhance
safety performance. Professional Safety April 2002: 43-47.
(82) Gordon R D. Conceptualizing leadership with respect to its historical-contextual antecedents to
power. The Leadership Quarterly 2002: 13 (2); 151-167.
(83) Gardner W L, Cogliser C C, Davis K M and Dickens M P. Authentic leadership: a review of the
literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly 2011: 22 (6); 1120-1145.
(84) Walumbwa F O, Avolio B J, Gardner W L, Wernsing T S and Peterson S J. Authentic leadership:
development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management 2008: 34 (1);
89-126.
(85) Shamir B and Eilam G. What’s your story?: A life-stories approach to authentic leadership
development. The Leadership Quarterly 2005: 16 (3); 395-417.
(86) Avolio B J and Gardner W L. Authentic leadership development: getting to the root of positive
forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 2005: 16 (3); 315-338.
(87) Eid J, Mearns K, Larsson G, Laberg J C and Johnsen B H. Leadership, psychological capital and
safety research: conceptual issues and future research questions. Safety Science 2012: 50 (1);
55-61.
(88) Osborn R N, Hunt J G and Jauch L R. Toward a contextual theory of leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly 2002: 13 (6); 797-837.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 47]
Cranfield University, School of Management
(89) Porter L W and McLaughlin G B. Leadership and the organizational context: like the weather?
The Leadership Quarterly 2006: 17 (6); 559-576.
(90) Drath W H, McCauley C D, Palus C J, Van Velsor E, O’Connor P M G and McGuire J B.
Direction, alignment, commitment: toward a more integrative ontology of leadership. The
Leadership Quarterly 2008: 19 (6); 635-653.
(91) Denis J-L, Langley A and Sergi V. Leadership in the plural. The Academy of Management Annals
2012: 6 (1); 211-283.
(92) Bennett N and Lemoine G J. What a difference a word makes: understanding threats to
performance in a VUCA world. Business Horizons 2014: 57 (3); 311-317.
(93) Horney N, Pasmore W and O’Shea T. Leadership agility: a business imperative for a VUCA
world. People and Strategy 2010: 33 (4); 32-38.
(94) Heifetz R A and Laurie D L. The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review 1997: 75 (1); 124-
134
(95) Thorpe R, Gold J and Lawler J. Locating Distributed Leadership. International Journal of
Management Reviews 2011: 13 (3); 239-250.
(96) Bales R F and Slater P E. Role differentiation in small decision-making groups. In: Parsons T and
Bales R F. (eds). Family, socialization and interaction process pp. 259-306. Glencoe, IL: The
Free Press, 1955.
(97) Black J and Baldwin R. When risk-based regulation aims low: approaches and challenges.
Regulation & Governance 2012: 6 (1); 2-22.
(98) Gronn P. Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly 2002: 13 (4);
423-451.
(99) Bolden R. Distributed leadership in organizations: a review of theory and research. International
Journal of Management Reviews 2011: 13 (3); 251-269.
(100) Fitzsimmons D, Turnbull James K and Denyer D. Alternative approaches for studying shared and
distributed leadership. International Journal of Management Reviews 2011: 13 (3); 313-328.
(101) Spillane J P. Distributed Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006.
(102) Buchanan D A, Addicott R, Fitzgerald L, Ferlie E and Baeza J I. Nobody in charge: Distributed
change agency in healthcare. Human Relations 2007: 60 (7); 1065-1090.
(103) Mayrowetz D. Making sense of distributed leadership: exploring the multiple usages of the
concept in the field. Educational Administration Quarterly 2008: 44 (3); 424-435.
(104) Currie G, Lockett A and Suhomlinova A. The institutionalization of distributed leadership: a
“Catch-22” in English public services. Human Relations 2009: 62 (11); 1735-1761.
(105) Currie G, Grubnic S and Hodges R. Leadership in public service networks: antecedents, process
and outcome. Public Administration 2011: 89 (2); 242-260.
(106) Martin G P, Currie G and Finn R. Leadership, service reform, and public-service networks: the
case of cancer-genetics pilots in the English NHS. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory 2008: 19 (4); 769-794.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 48]
Cranfield University, School of Management
(107) Appelbaum E, Bailey T, Berg P and Kalleberg A L. Manufacturing advantage: why high-
performing work systems pay off. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000.
(108) Hales C P. What do Managers do? A critical review of the evidence. Journal of Management
Studies 1986: 23 (1); 88-115.
(109) Hales C P. Why do managers do what they do ? reconciling evidence and theory in accounts of
managerial work. British Journal of Management 1999: 10 (4); 335-350.
(110) Smallman C and John G. British directors perspectives on the impact of health and safety on
corporate performance. Safety Science 2001: 38 (3); 227-239.
(111) Currie G and Lockett A. Distributing leadership in health and social care: concertive, conjoint or
collective? International Journal of Management Reviews 2011: 13 (3); 286-300.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 49]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Appendix 1.
List of articles and reports from different sources identified in the search of the electronic databases and by cross referencing from these initial articles.
References – Academic Literature (* items were identified in the initial search and screening process)
Barling J, Loughlin C and Kelloway E K. Development and test of a model linking safety-specific
transformational leadership and occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology 2002: 87 (3); 488-
496.
*Clarke S and Ward K. The Role of Leader Influence Tactics and Safety Climate in Engaging
Employees' Safety Participation. Risk Analysis 2006: 26 (5); 1175-1185.
*Conchie S and Donald I. The moderating role of safety-specific trust on the relation between safety-
specific leadership and safety citizenship behaviors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2009:
14 (2); 137-147.
*Conchie S, Taylor P and Donald I. Promoting safety voice with safety-specific transformational
leadership: The mediating role of two dimensions of trust. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
2012: 17 (1); 105-115.
Credo K, Armenakis A, Feild H and Young R. Organizational Ethics, Leader-Member Exchange, and
Organizational Support: Relationships with Workplace Safety. Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies 2010: 17 (4); 325-334.
*Dahl O and Olsen E. Safety compliance on offshore platforms: A multi-sample survey on the role of
perceived leadership involvement and work climate. Safety Science 2013: 54; 17- 26.
Hoffmeister K, Gibbons A, Johnson S, Cigularov K, Chen P and Rosecrance J. The differential effects
of transformational leadership facets on employee safety. Safety Science 2014: 62; 68-78.
*Hofmann D A and Morgeson F P. Safety-related behaviour as a social exchange: the role of perceived
organizational support and Leader-Member Exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology 1999: 84 (2);
286-296.
Hofmann D A, Morgeson F P and Gerras S J. Climate as a moderator of the relationship between
leader-member exchange and content specific citizenship: safety climate as an exemplar. Journal of
Applied Psychology 2003: 88 (1); 170-178.
Inness M, Turner N, Barling J and Stride C B. Transformational leadership and employee safety
performance: a within-person, between-person job design. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
2010: 15 (3); 279-290.
*Kapp E. The influence of supervisor leadership practices and perceived group safety climate on
employee safety performance. Safety Science 2012: 50; 1119-1124.
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 50]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Kath L M, Marks K M and Ranney J. Safety climate dimensions, leader-member exchange, and
organizational support as predictors of upward safety communication in a sample of rail industry
workers. Safety Science 2010: 48; 643-650.
Kelloway E K, Mullen J and Francis L. Divergent effects of transformational and passive leadership on
employee safety. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2006: 11 (1); 76-86.
Lu C S and Yang C S. Safety leadership and safety behaviour in container terminal operations. Safety
Science 2010: 48 (2); 123-134.
Luria G, Zohar D and Erev I. The effect of workers’ visibility on effectiveness of intervention programs:
Supervisory-based safety interventions. Journal of Safety Research 2008: 39 (3); 273-280.
Michael J H, Guo Z G, Wiedenbeck J K and Ray C D. Production supervisor impacts on subordinates’
safety outcomes: an investigation of leader-member exchange and safety communication. Journal of
Safety Research 2006: 37 (5); 469-477.
Mullen J E and Kelloway E K. Safety leadership: a longitudinal study of the effects of transformational
leadership on safety outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 2009: 82 (2);
253-272.
Yagil D and Luria G. Friends in need: the protective effect of social relationships under low-safety
climate. Group and Organization Management 2010: 35 (6); 727-750.
Zohar D. The effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate, and assigned priorities on minor injuries
in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior 2002: 23 (1); 75-92.
*Zohar D. Modifying supervisory practices to improve subunit safety: a leadership-based intervention
model. Journal of Applied Psychology 2002: 87 (1); 156-163.
Zohar D and Luria G. The use of supervisory practices as leverage to improve safety behaviour: a
cross-level intervention model. Journal of Safety Research 2003: 34 (5); 567-577.
References – Policy Literature Brazier A, Gait A and Waite P. Different types of supervision and the impact on safety in the chemical
and allied industries. (part 2 of 3). HSE. 2004.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr292.htm
Busby J S and Collins A. Risk leadership and organisational type. HSE. 2009.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr756.pdf
Clark M and Vassie L. Slips, trips and falls Practitioner awareness of the HSE’s Slips and Trips Priority
Programme. 2005 and 2007.
http://www.iosh.co.uk/~/media/Documents/Books%20and%20resources/Published%20research/Slipstri
psandfalls.ashx
Conchie S and Moon S. Promoting active safety leadership. IOSH, 2010.
http://www.iosh.co.uk/supervisors
Cummings R. Expert views on the evidence base for effective health and safety management (phase
2). HSL/2006/109. HSL. 2006.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/2006/hsl06109.pdf
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 51]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Ernst and Young. Development of a Leadership resource pack. HSE. 2000.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/otopdf/2000/oto00098.pdf
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. Leadership and Occupational Safety and Health
(OSH): an expert analysis. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2012.
Fleming M. Effective supervisory safety leadership behaviours in the offshore oil and gas industry. HSE.
1999. http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/otopdf/1999/oto99065.pdf
Fuller C and Vassie L. Benchmarking employee supervisory processes in the chemical industry. HSE.
2005. http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr312.pdf
Gadd S and Collins A M. Safety Culture: A review of the literature. HSL/2002/25. HSE. 2002.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/2002/hsl02-25.pdf
Healey N and Sugden C. Safety culture on the Olympic Park. HSE. 2012.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr942.htm
Jones R. What practitioners do a survey of UK Registered Safety Practitioners to determine their roles
and task. IOSH. 2005.
http://www.iosh.co.uk/~/media/Documents/Books%20and%20resources/Published%20research/What_
practitioners_do.ashx
King K, Lunn S and Michaelis C. Director Leadership Behaviour Research. HSE. 2010.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr816.pdf
Lekka C and Healey N. A review of the literature on effective leadership behaviours for safety. HSE.
2012. http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr952.htm
O’Dea A and Flin R. The role of managerial leadership in determining workplace safety outcomes. HSE.
2003. http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr044.htm
OECD. Corporate governance for process safety: Guidance for senior leaders in high hazard industries.
OECD Environment, Health and Safety Chemical Accidents Programme. June 2012.
Poxon B, Coupar W, Findlay J, Luckhurst D, Stevens R and Webster J. Using soft people skills to
improve worker involvement in health and safety. HSE. 2007.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr580.pdf
Shearn P and Miller M. Director Leadership of Health and Safety. HSL/2005/21. Buxton: HSL, 2005.
Sweeney K and Vassie L. Slips and trips: Survey of IOSH members – wave 2 results and comparison
with wave 1. IOSH. 2008.
http://www.iosh.co.uk/~/media/Documents/Books%20and%20resources/Published%20research/Slips_a
nd_trips.ashx
Vassie L and Bailey E. Slips and trips: Baseline survey of IOSH members June 2007. IOSH. 2007.
http://www.iosh.co.uk/~/media/Documents/Books%20and%20resources/Published%20research/Slips_a
nd_trips_baseline_survey.ashx
Ward R, Brazier A and Lancaster R. Different types of supervision and the impact on safety in the
chemical and allied industries. Literature review. HSE. 2004.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr292a.pdf
Safety Leaders: Who are they? What do they do?
[Page 52]
Cranfield University, School of Management
Wright F and James P. Directors’ responsibilities for health and safety: the findings of two peer reviews
of published research. HSE. 2006.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr451.pdf
References – Practitioner Literature Carillo R A. Safety Leadership Formula. Professional Safety March 2002: 41-47.
Carillo R A. Safety Leadership: managing the paradox. Professional Safety July 2005: 31-34.
DeRose A J. The SH&E professional: leader and change agent. Professional Safety March 2004: 40-
43.
Drennan F S and Richey D. Skills-based leadership: the first line supervisor – part II. Professional
Safety March 2012: 50-54.
Forck M. Courageous Leadership: Three traits to expand your influence. Professional Safety March
2011: 34-35.
Forck M. Why safety leadership is hard: 7 secrets to help you succeed. Professional Safety October
2012: 34-35.
Geller E S. 10 leadership qualities for a total safety culture. Professional Safety May 2000: 38-41.
Geller E S. People based leadership: enriching a work culture for world-class safety. Professional
Safety March 2008: 29-36.
Greer M E. Continuing the leadership quest. Professional Safety February 2002: 9.
Kapp E A. Leadership alone is not enough. Professional Safety May 2012: 10.
Kendrick J. Transformational Leadership- changing individuals and social systems. Professional Safety
November 2011: 14.
Krause T R and Weekley T. Safety Leadership: a four factor model for establishing a high-functioning
organization. Professional Safety November 2005: 34-40.
Mathis T. Be an effective safety leader. Professional Safety January 2013: 19.
Pater R. Two types of leaders – which are you? Professional Safety January 2011: 25-26.
Pater R. Six safety leadership strategies: energizing and sustaining safety performance and culture.
Professional Safety October 2011: 16-18.
Pater R. Cultural Leadership raising the level: Part 1. Professional Safety March 2012: 28-30.
Petersen D. Leadership and Safety Excellence: a positive culture drives performance. Professional
Safety October 2004: 28-32.
Williams J H. Improving safety leadership: using industrial/organizational psychology to enhance safety
performance. Professional Safety April 2002: 43-47.
All rights reserved. Permission to reproduce any part of this work will not be withheld unreasonably, on condition that full attribution is given to the publication and to IOSH.
While this paper reports on research that was funded by IOSH, the contents of the document reflect the views of the authors, who are solely responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented. IOSH has not edited the text in any way, except for essential formatting requirements. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of IOSH.
All web addresses are current at the time of going to press. The publisher takes no responsibility for subsequent changes.
© IOSH 2016Published by IOSHThe GrangeHighfield DriveWigstonLeicestershireLE18 1NNUKt +44 (0)116 257 3100f +44 (0)116 257 3101www.iosh.co.uk
POL3
193a
/141
016/
Institution of Occupational Safety and HealthFounded 1945Incorporated by Royal Charter 2003Registered charity in England and Wales No. 1096790Registered charity in Scotland No. SC043254
IOSH is the Chartered body for health and safety professionals. With more than 46,000 members in over 120 countries, we’re the world’s largest professional health and safety organisation.
We set standards, and support, develop and connect our members with resources, guidance, events and training. We’re the voice of the profession, and campaign on issues that affect millions of working people.
IOSH was founded in 1945 and is a registered charity with international NGO status.
IOSHThe GrangeHighfi eld DriveWigstonLeicestershireLE18 1NNUK
t +44 (0)116 257 3100www.iosh.co.uk
twitter.com/IOSH_tweets facebook.com/IOSHoffi cial tinyurl.com/IOSH-linkedin